Udhav Singh vs Madhav Rao Scindia - 1975 Supreme(SC) 413

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1975 Supreme(SC) 413

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. BHAGWATI AND R.S. SARKARIA, JJ.
Udhav Singh, Appellant
Versus
Madhav Rao Scindia, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 2751 of 1972
Decided on 10-10-1975.
Advocates appeared
Mr. G. M. Dixit, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. S. K. Mehta, M/s. M. Qamruddin and P. N. Puri, Advocates with him), for Appellant; Mr. S. V. Gupte, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. R. N. Bhalgotra, S. S. Khanduja, Ashok Chitale, S. R. Chide and V. P. Gupta, Advocates with him), for Respondent.

Advocates:
Ashok Chitale, G.N.DIKSHIT, M.Qamaruddin, P.N.PURI, R.N.Bhalgoha, S.K.MEHTA, S.R.Chitale, S.S.Khanduja, S.V.Gupta, V.P.GUPTA

Headnote:“MATERIAL FACT” - ILLEGALITY APPARENT—DEFENDANT NOT PLEADING - DISOBEDIENCE OF THE MANDATE - material facts and material particulars — distinction - whether non-compliance can be condoned? - plea of non-joinder
       -all the primary facts which must be proved at the trial by a party to establish the existence of a cause of action or his defence, are “material facts”. All those facts which are essential to clothe the petitioner with a complete cause of action are “material facts which must be pleaded - Udhav Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindia, AIR 1976 SC 744 = (1976) 2 SCR 246. What facts are material in a particular case depends upon the facts and circumstances on each case. All facts which a party must establish to prove his cause of action or defence and all facts which a party is required to prove at the trial are material and must be pleaded.
       -where a certain illegality is apparent the Court must take notice of it even though the defendant has not pleaded the same
       clause (b) of this section in clear, peremptory terms obligates an election petitioner to join as respondent to his petition, a candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition. Disobedience of this mandate, inexorably attracts Section 86 which commands the High Court, in equally imperative language to dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 82
       – like the Code of Civil Procedure, this section also envisages a distinction between “material facts” and “material particulars”, Clause (a) of sub-section (i) corresponds to Order 6, Rule 2, while clause (b) is analogous to Order 6, Rules 4 and 6 of the Code. The distinction between “material facts” and “material particulars” is important because different consequences may flow from a deficiency of such facts or particulars in the pleading. Failure to plead even a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and incomplete allegations of such a large are liable to be struck off under Order 6, Rule 16, Code of Civil Procedure. If the petition is based solely on those allegations which suffer from lack of material facts, the petition is liable to be summarily rejected for want of a cause of action. In the case of a petition suffering from a deficiency of material particulars, the Court has a discretion to allow the petitioner to supply the required particulars even after the expiry of limitation. All the primary facts which must be proved at the trial by a party to establish the existence of a cause of action or his defence are “material facts”. In the context of a charge of corrupt practice, “material facts” would mean all the basic facts constituting the ingredients of the particular corrupt practice alleged, which the petitioner is bound to substantiate before he can succeed on that charge. Whether in an election petition a particular fact is material or not, and as such required to be pleaded in a question which depends on the nature of the charge levelled, the ground relied upon and the special circumstances of the case. In short, all those facts which are essential to clothe the petitioner with a complete cause of action are “material facts” which must be pleaded, and failure to plead even a single material fact amounts to disobedience of the mandate of Section 83(1)(a)
       – the respondent cannot by consent express or facit, waive these provisions or condone a non-compliance with the imperative of Section 82(b). Even inaction, laches or delay on the part of the respondent in pointing out the lethal defect of non-compliance cannot relieve the Court of the statutory obligations cost on it by Section 86. As soon as the non-compliance with Section 82(b) comes or is brought to the notice of the Court, no matter in what manner and at what stage, during the pendency of the petition, it is bound to dismiss the petition in unstinted obedience to the command of Section 86, as held in Udhav Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindia, AIR 1976 SC 744.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. The legal document provided discusses the procedural and substantive requirements for election petitions, particularly focusing on the importance of pleading "material facts" and "material particulars" as mandated under relevant election laws.

Key points include:

Material Facts: These are the essential facts that establish the cause of action or defense. They must be proved at trial and are necessary to give the petitioner a complete cause of action. Failure to plead even a single material fact results in an incomplete petition, which can be struck off, or the petition being dismissed for lack of cause (!) (!) .
Material Particulars: These are details that amplify and elaborate on the material facts. They are not essential to establish the cause of action but serve to provide clarity and completeness. Deficiencies in particulars can often be remedied even after the limitation period, but deficiencies in material facts cannot (!) (!) .
Distinction Between Material Facts and Particulars: The law emphasizes the importance of this distinction because different legal consequences follow from deficiencies in each. Material facts are fundamental and must be pleaded; particulars are supplementary and can be supplied later if required (!) (!) .
Obligation to Plead: The law mandates that election petitions must contain a concise statement of the material facts and full particulars of any corrupt practices alleged. The failure to do so results in the petition being incomplete and liable for dismissal (!) (!) .
Non-joinder of Necessary Parties: If allegations relate to a candidate who is a necessary party, such as one against whom a corrupt practice is alleged, non-joinder is a fatal defect. The law is strict in requiring such parties to be joined, and non-joinder can lead to dismissal of the petition (!) (!) .
Timing and Procedure for Raising Defects: Objections regarding non-joinder or failure to plead material facts can be raised at any stage of the trial, including through applications or objections after the presentation of evidence. The law permits such objections to be raised even late, emphasizing the importance of procedural correctness (!) (!) .
Legal Obligation and Court’s Discretion: The court is bound to dismiss an election petition if it comes to notice that the essential procedural requirements, such as joinder of necessary parties or proper pleading of material facts, have not been complied with. This obligation is non-waivable and cannot be condoned by consent or delay (!) (!) .
Implication of Non-Compliance: Non-compliance with the statutory provisions regarding pleadings and joinder results in automatic dismissal of the election petition. The law is clear that such procedural lapses cannot be remedied by waiver or consent (!) (!) .

In summary, the law underscores the necessity of properly pleading all material facts and necessary parties in election petitions. Any omission or defect in these aspects is considered a fundamental flaw that warrants dismissal, emphasizing the strict procedural regime designed to ensure transparency and fairness in electoral disputes.

JUDGMENT

SARKARIA, J.:—This appeal is directed against a judgment, dated October 27, 1972, of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissing the election petition filed by the appellant to question the election of the respondent, to Lok Sabha.

2. Six candidates filed nomination papers for contesting the election to Lok Sabha from Guna Parliamentary Constituency in March 1971. Out of them, Sarvshri Shiv Pratap Singh and Gaya Prasad withdrew their candidature after their nomination papers were found to be in order after scrutiny, leaving four candidates in the field viz., Sarvshri Madhavrao Scindia, Deorao Krishnarao Jadhav, Narayan Singh Albela and Bundal Singh to contest the election. Shri Madhav Rao Scindia respondent herein who was sponsored by the Jan Sangh was declared elected by a margin of 1,41,090 votes over his nearest rival, 746 Shri Deorao Krishnarao Jadhav, sponsored by the Indian National Congress.

3. Udhav Singh, an elector of the Constituency, filed an election petition on 26-4-1971, in the High Court challenging the election of the respondent on two main grounds viz., (i) that the respondent and/or his election agent had incurred or authorised expenditure in connection with the election in excess of the limit of Rs. 35,000/- prescribed under Section 77 (3) of the Act read with Rule 90 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. It was alleged that the respondent made a tour in the Constituency by helicopters and showed Rs. 5,000/- only as an expense towards the cost of the aviation fuel but did not show the hiring and other charges in respect thereof. It was further alleged that the respondent hired and sued motor vehicles, not less than 18, but did not show the expenditure incurred in respect thereof in the statement of election expenses submitted by him to the Election Commission;

(i) that the workers of the respondent, with his consent, had threatened the electors with bodily injuries and criminally intimidated them not to vote for Shri Deorao Krishnarao Jadhav the Congress candidate. Five instances of such threats and intimidation interfering with the free exercise of electoral rights, were set out in Clauses (i) to (v) of the original Paragraph 10 (III) of the petition, which, after amendment, was renumbered as Para. 11 (iv). Clause (iv) of Paragraph 11 is as follows:

"That, on or before 22-2-71, Shri Mohan Prasad Ojha, a Congress Worker of Village Umri (Tehsil Guna) was threatened at pistol point by the workers of the respondent with his consent, Shri Shiv Pratap Singh and others of Umri threatened not to vote and canvass in favour of the Congress candidate, Deorao Krishnarao Jadhav and threatening with dire consequences.

4. Process was issued to the lone respondent impleaded in the election petition. On 28-5-1971, an advocate put in appearance on his behalf. In the written statement presented on 24-9-1971 the respondent traversed the allegations of corrupt practices made in the petition. In answer to Clause (iv) of Paragraph 11 of the petition, the respondent stated:

"The allegation of the petitioner that on or before 22-2-1971 Shri Mohan Prasad Ojha, a Congress Worker of the village Umri (Tehsil Guna) was threatened at pistol point by the workers of the respondent with his consent is denied. It is also denied that with the consent of the respondent, Shri Shiv Pratap Singh and others of Umri threatened him not to vote and canvass in favour of the Congress Candidate Shri Deorao Krishnarao Jadhav and threatened him with dire consequences. This para is also lacking in material particulars as to who were the alleged workers, what was their names their addresses, castes etc. It cannot therefore, be enquired into. The allegation is incorrect, baseless and vague. It is also vague because particulars as to when, where and in whose presence the alleged consent of the respondent was given are not mentioned.

5. The main issues framed on 1-10-1971 were as under:

"1. Has the respondent incurred or had authorised expenditure w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1975 Supreme(SC) 413

Cases Referred (10)