2001 Supreme(SC) 1266

2001(7) Supreme 108
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI., R.C. Lahoti, Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.
Hari Shanker Jain -Appellant
versus
Sonia Gandhi -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4400 of 2000
With
Civil Appeal No. 4405 of 2000
Decided on 12-9-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants in C.A. Nos. 4400/2000 and 4405/2000 : In person.
For the Respondent : Milon Kr. Banerjee, Sr. Advocate, Gaurab K. Banerjee, Arun Bhardwaj, Ms. Shruti Chaudhary, Ms. Gauri Rasgotra, Suman Jyoti Khaitan, Advocates.

VERY IMPORTANT POINT
Though High Court was in error in holding that grant of a certificate of citizenship u/s. 5(1)(c) of citizenship Act, 1955 is conclusive and binding on an election Judge but his dismissal of election petition is upheld on the ground that pleadings of appellant in election petition are so vague and incomplete as they do not disclose material facts for a triable issue or make out a cause of action for trial. The result is that presumption that Mrs. Sonia Gandhi has acquired Indian citizenship by virtue of certificate u/s. 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 has not been rebutted by Appellants.

Headnote:Representation of People Act, 1951-Sections 86 and 116A-C.P.C., 1908-Order 6 Rule 16 r/w Order 7 Rule 11-Election petition challenging election of respondent on ground that she is not a valid Indian Citizen u/s 5(1)(c) of Citizenship Act, 1955-Dismissed by designated Election Judge in view of certificate of citizenship issued to her u/s 5(1)(c) after her marriage with an Indian citizen-The certificate was final and binding unless cancelled by Central Govt.-No triable issue or cause of action under Order 6 Rule 16 r/w Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.-Dismissed u/s 86 RPA 1951-Appeal to Supreme Court u/s 116A-Whether a designated Judge of High Court (u/s 80A of RPA 1951) can entertain and decide a plea relating to validity of any law? (Yes, subject to two limitations) (Ref. Art. 329 of Constitution, Sections 80A, 87, 100, 82, 83, 84, 98, 99)-Case law discussed.

       Held : It is clear from a conspectus of the abovesaid provisions that jurisdiction to try an election petition has been conferred on the High Court. The grounds for declaring an election to be void must conform to the requirement of Section 100 and the operative part of the order of the High Court must conform to the requirement of Sections 98 and 99 of RPA, 1951. The vires of any law may be put in issue by either party to an election petition before the High Court and the High Court can adjudicate upon such an issue if it becomes necessary to do so for the purpose of declaring an election to be void under Section 100 and for the purpose of making an order in conformity with Sections 98 and 99 of RPA, 1951. The only restriction on the power of the High Court, as spelled out by clause (a) of Article 329 of the Constitution, is that the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituency or allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 327 or Article 328, cannot be called in question and hence cannot be so adjudged. A Judge of the High Court can, therefore, while hearing an election petition, adjudicate upon the validity of any statutory provision subject to two limitations: (i) that it must be necessary to go into that question for the purpose of trying an election petition on any one or more of the grounds enumerated in Section 100 and for the purpose of granting any one or more of the reliefs under Sections 98 and 99 of the Act, and (ii) a specific case for going into the validity or vires of any law is made out on the pleadings raised in the election petition. (Para 9)

       Held (after reviewing case law) : The learned designated Election Judge was not, therefore, right in laying down as a wide and general proposition of law, that in an election petition question of validity of a statute cannot be gone into at all. (Para 11)

       (ii) Representation of People Act, 1951-Section 116A-Appeal to Supreme Court against judgment of designated election Judge of Allahabad High Court-Whether the plea that a returned candidate is not a citizen of India can be raised in an election petition before the High Court? (Yes)-Whether a plea questioning the citizenship of the returned candidate is entertainable by the High Court while hearing an election petition in spite of the returned candidate holding a certificate of citizenship granted under Section 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955? (Yes, because presumption is rebuttable) (Citizenship Act, 1955-Acquisition of citizenship by marriage under Section 5(1)(c)-Whether conclusive or rebuttable ? (The later) - Constitution of India-Articles 84, 102-RPA Act, 1951-Section 100(1)(a)-Case law discussed.

       Held : Can the validity of a certificate of citizenship issued under Section 5(1)(c) of Citizenship Act, 1955 at all be gone into during trial of an election petition? The learned designated Election Judge has taken the view that certificate of citizenship issued by the Central Government is valid and binding and cannot be called in question before a court of law unless cancelled or annulled by the Central Government itself. A perusal of the relevant provisions and the scheme of the Citizenship Act would show that here again the High Court was not right in taking such a broad view which it has taken. (Para 12)

       After reviewing statutory provisions and case law :

        Held : Thus, looking at the scheme of the Citizenship Act, as also the judicial opinion which has prevailed ever since the enactment of Citizenship Act, 1955, we are unhesitatingly of the opinion that in spite of a certificate of registration under Section 5(1)(c) of Citizenship Act, 1955 having been granted to a person and in spite of his having been enrolled in the voters list, the question whether he is a citizen of India and hence qualified for, or disqualified from, contesting an election can be raised before and tried by the High Court hearing an election petition, provided the challenge is based on factual matrix given in the petition and not merely bald or vague allegations. A certificate of citizenship issued under Section 5 of the Act is a statutory certificate issued by a statutory authority. A presumption of validity and regularity attaches with such certificate. Under Section 114 illustration (e) of the Evidence Act, 1872 the Court may presume that official acts have been regularly performed. A presumption attaching with the certificate is available to be drawn to the effect that the prescribed authority issuing the certificate was competent to do so and that it had satisfied itself as to the existence of such facts as would entitle the applicant (that is, the respondent herein) to issuance of such certificate and that the application for the issuance of certificate filed by the applicant was in order. The presumption exists though it is rebuttable and not conclusive. (Paras 21 & 22)

       (iii) Representation of People Act, 1951-Sections 86 and 116A-C.P.C. 1908-Order 6 Rule 16 r/w Order 7 Rule 11 r/ws 82(a) RPA 1951-Whether on the pleadings of the two election petitioners, a cause of action or a triable issue was raised which should have been put to trial before the designated election judge of the High Court calling upon the respondent to file her written statement ? (No) (R.P.A. 1951 -Sections 82(1)(a), 83(1)(a), 102-(Citizenship Act, 1955-Section 5(1)(c)-Evidence Act, 1872-Section 57(1)-C.P.C. 1908-Order 6 Rule 2-Constitution of India-Articles 5 to 10) - Case law referred.

       Held : It is the duty of the Court to examine the petition irrespective of any written statement or denial and reject the petition if it does not disclose a cause of action. To enable a Court to reject a plaint on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action, it should look at the plaint and nothing else. Courts have always frowned upon vague pleadings which leave a wide scope to adduce any evidence. No amount of evidence can cure basic defect in the pleadings. There are two features common to both the election petitions. Firstly, both the petitions are verified as true to personal knowledge of the two petitioners respectively which is apparently incorrect as the very tenor of pleadings discloses that any of the petitioners could not have had personal knowledge of various facts relating to the respondent personally and during the course of hearing we had put this across to the two petitioners and they responded by submitting only this much that the verification if incorrect was capable of being cured. The second common feature in the two petitions is that there are bald assertions made about the Italian law without stating what is the source of such law as has been pleaded by the election-petitioners or what is the basis for raising such pleadings. These averments also have been verified as true to my knowledge of each of the election-petitioners a position, wholly unacceptable. (Paras 25 & 26)

       There is, thus, no manner of doubt that in the courts in India, a point of foreign law is a matter of fact and, therefore, a plea based on a point of foreign law must satisfy the requirement of pleading a material fact in an election petition filed before the High Court. The two election petitions do not satisfy this requirement. The averments made in the two election petitions do not go beyond making bald assertions. The pleadings do not give any indication of such Italian law on which are based the averments made in the election petitions-whether it is any statutory enactment or any other provision or principle having the force of law in Italy. During the course of hearing we asked the two appellants if they could show us any book, authority or publication based whereon we could form an opinion, even prima facie, in support of the averments relating to Italian law made in the election petitions. The two appellants regretted there inability to show us anything. (Para 29)

       Without further burdening this judgment by dealing with each and every other averment made in the two election petitions, it would suffice to say that we have carefully read each of the two election petitions and heard each of the two election-petitioners (appellants) in very many details specially on the aspect of the election petitions suffering from the vice of not satisfying the mandatory requirement of pleading material facts as required by Section 82(1)(a) of RPA 1951 and we are satisfied that the two election petitions do not satisfy the requirement statutorily enacted and judicially explained in umpteen number of decisions. The petitions are hopelessly vague and completely bald in the allegations made, most of which could not possibly be within the personal knowledge of the petitioners but still verified as "true" to their knowledge, without indicating the source. Such pleadings cannot amount to disclosing any cause of action and are required to be rejected/dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 IPC. To sum up, we are of the opinion that a plea that a returned candidate is not a citizen of India and hence not qualified, or is disqualified for being a candidate in the election can be raised in an election petition before the High Court in spite of the returned candidate holding a certificate of citizenship by registration under Section 5(1}(c) of the Citizenship Act. A plea as to constitutional validity of any law can, in appropriate cases, as dealt with hereinabove, also be raised and heard in an election petition where it is necessary to decide the election dispute. The view of the law, stated by the learned designated Election Judge of the High Court of Allahabad cannot be sustained. To say the least, the proposition has been very widely stated in the impugned order of High Court. However, in spite of answering these questions in favour of the appellants yet the election petitions filed by them cannot be directed to be heard and tried on merits as the bald and vague averments made in the election petitions do not satisfy the requirement of pleading material facts within the meaning of Section 82(1)(a) of RPA 1951 read with the requirements of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The decision of the High Court dismissing the two election petitions at the preliminary stage, is sustained though for reasons somewhat different from those assigned by the High Court. The appeals are dismissed but without any order as to the costs. (Paras 34 & 35)