IMPORTANT POINT
Defect in verification or an affidavit accompanying an election petition wherein allegations of corrupt practice are made, is curable but any casual, negligent or cavalier approach in such serious and sensitive matter involving great public importance cannot be countenanced or glossed over too liberally.

Headnote:Representation of the People Act, 1951-Sections 81, 83, 86 and 123(3) -Election Petition-Allegation of fraud etc. in obtaining false caste certificate-Verification of pleadings-Defects in verification of an election petition as well as of defects in affidavit accompanying an election petition-Curable defect-What happens when the defect is not cured-Any casual, negligent or cavalier approach in such serious and sensitive matter cannot be countenanced or glossed over too liberally-Election petition held liable to be dismissed.
       Held : It is, therefore, a settled position in law that defect in verification or an affidavit is curable. But further question is what happens when the defect is not cured. There is gulf of difference between a curable defect and a defect continuing in the verification affidavit without any effort being made to cure the defect. (Para 12)
       The casual approach of the appellant is not only visible from the manner in which verification was done, but also from the fact that he has mentioned two different districts to which he claims to be belonging. The explanation that the same was given by mistake is too shallow when considered in the background that he is stated to be a practicing advocate. An advocate is supposed to know the importance of verfication and the desirability of making statement of correct facts in any petition and more in case of an election petition. An election petition is intended to bring to focus any illegality attached to an election. It essentially and basically puts a question mark on the purity of election, casts doubt on fairness thereof and seeks a declaration that mandate of people has been obtained by questionable means. In a democracy the mandate has sacrosanctity. It is to be respected and not lightly interfered with. When it is contended that the purity of electoral process has been polluted, weighty reasons must be shown and established. The onus on the election petitioner is heavy as he has to substantiate his case by making out a clear case for interference both in the pleadings and in the trial. Any casual, negligent or cavalier approach in such serious and sensitive matter involving great public importance cannot be countenanced or glossed over too liberally as for fun. (Para 18)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-In these appeals under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short the Act ) challenge is made to judgment and order dated 27.12.2002 passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the election petition filed by the appellant, by accepting prayers made by the respondent No. 1 in that regard. As the issues involved are pristinely legal, reference to the factual scenario briefly would suffice.

2. Election was held to Andhra Pradesh, Legislative Assembly on 11.9.1999. The controversy in the present appeal relates to 10 Saluru (ST) Legislative Assembly Constituency which is reserved for members of the Scheduled Tribe. Respondent No.1 filed his nomination claiming to be a member of Scheduled Tribe. His nomination was accepted and objections to his candidature were rejected. Nominations of some candidates were also rejected. Respondent No.1 after poll was declared elected in the election. The appellant filed election petition under Sections 5 and 100(1)(c) and (d) (i) of the Act before the High Court on 19.11.1999. Primary stand taken in the election petition appears to be that the claim of respondent No.1 that he is a member of Scheduled Tribe is not correct. Application was filed by present respondent No. 1 under Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the CPC ) and Section 86 of the Act praying for rejection of the election petition on the ground that locus of the petitioner was not established, no cause of action was disclosed and affidavit accompanying the petition was not in the prescribed form, verification done and the affidavit filed did not conform to the requirements as laid down in the statute in regard to alleged corrupt practice and, therefore, the same was misconceived and was liable to be rejected. Appellant filed his response to the application.

3. On consideration of the rival stands the High Court came to hold that though essentially there was no definite allegation of corrupt practices, yet allegations that somebody played fraud and has approached the electorate claiming that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe and get selected are similar to, if not higher in gravity than allegations as to corrupt practices. The allegations are to be treated at par with those relating to corrupt practices. That being so it was held that the affidavit was not in the proper form and that election petition was not maintainable, as material facts were not pleaded, and merely some unreliable and improper averments were made and that required rejection of the petition. It was observed that the verification as required to be done in terms of Order VI Rule 15 CPC were not complied with. The verification was extremely vague and it was not stated as to what was the source of information on which pleadings were based and which part really was on the basis of personal knowledge and information was also not indicated. It was additionally noted that the petitioner was very casual in filing the election petition; even the district to which the election petitioner claimed to belong was described differently in the election petition. In conclusion it was noted by the High Court as follows:

(a) The Election Petition does not disclose a valid cause of action;

(b) It contains several paragraphs which do not fit into an Election Petition filed under Sections 5 and 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act;

(d) The affidavit filed by the petitioner along with the Election Petition does not conform to the Form prescribed (Form No. 25) under Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 ( in short the Rules ).

4. In support of the appeals, learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the insistence on affidavit in a particular form is not correct as there was no allegation of corrupt practice and, therefor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 1070

Cases Referred (6)