Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND M.P. THAKKAR, JJ.
Azhar Hussain, Appellant
Versus
Rajiv Gandhi, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 2774 (NCE) of 1985, D/-25-4-1986.
-where material facts are not disclosed in the election petition and pleadings does not spell out the cause of action, the Court could not have permitted the election petitioner to adduce evidence on such points. All the facts which are essential to clothe the petition with complete cause of action must be pleaded and failure to plead even a single material fact, it was held that an election petition therefore can be and must be dismissed if it suffers from such vice - Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1986 SC 1253. In view of the pronouncement in Hardwari Lal v. Kanwal Singh, AIR 1972 SC 515, there is no escape from the conclusion that an election petition can be summarily dismissed if it does not furnish cause of action in excercise of the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure.
– no copy of the poster was produced, as in the case of Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1986 SC 1253 and it must also be realized that the election petitioner did not seek to produce the copy of the poster. It was held that the fact remains that without the production of the poster, the cause of action would not be complete and it would be fatal to the election petition in as much as the material facts and particulars would be missing. So also it could not enable the respondent to meet the case. Apart from that the most important aspect of the matter is that in the absence of the names of the respondent’s work or material facts spelling out the knowledge and consent of the respondent or his election agent, the cause of action would be in complete.
– there is no averments to show that the publication was made with the knowledge or consent of the returned candidate when the book was published in June, 1983,
– it is not pleaded, as evident from the election petition, as to who distributed the pamphlets, when they were distributed, where they were distributed and to whom they were distributed, in whose presence they were distributed etc. etc. Pleading is silent on these aspects. It is not even been pleaded that any particular person with the consent of the respondent or his election agent distributed the said pamphlets.
– the election petition was filed on the last day on which the election petition could have been presented having regard to the rigid period of limitation prescribed by Section 81 of the Act. It could not have been presented even on the next day. Such being the admitted position, it would make little difference whether the High Court used the expression “rejected” or “dismissed”. It would have had some significance if the petition was rejected instead of being “dismissed” before the expiry of the limitation inasmuch as a fresh petition which contained material facts and was in conformity with the requirements of law and whcih disclosed a cause of action could have been presented “within” the period of limitation. In this backdrop the High Court, it was held, was perfectly justified in dismissing the petition. And it makes no difference whether the expression employed in “dismissed” or “rejected” for nothing turns on whether the former expression is employed or the latter.
– the allegations were not sufficient without material particulars. It must also be shown that the assistance of the Government servant was obtained either by the respondent or his agent or by any other person with the consent of the election candidate or his election agent. the averments made in the election petition do not show (i) who had obtained or procured such assistance (ii) how he had procured or obtained such assistance and (iii) how it was said that it was with the consent of the respondent or his election agent. Nor it is shown which, if any, facts went to show that it was in furtherance of the prospects of the respondent’s election. In the absence of material facts and particulars in regard to these aspects, the petition would not disclose the cause of action. The petition does not disclose the abject words used in the speech. Now, unless the relevant or offedning passage from the speech is quoted, it cannot be said what exactly was said and in what context and whether it was calculated to promote the election prospect of the respondent. Averments pertaining to this, as held in Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1986 SC 1253; do not disclose a cause of action. The decisions in K.M. Mani v. P.J. Anthony, AIR 1979 SC 234; Manubhai Amarsey v. Popatlal Manilal Joshi, AIR 1969 SC 734; Hardwari Lal v. Kanwal Singh, AIR 1972 SC 515; wer followed.
– the pleading in the case of Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1986 SC 1253, is in the nature of a pleading of connivance and not of consent, which is not enough vide the case of Charanlal Sahu v. Giani Zial Singh, AIR 1984 SC 309. In the case of Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh, AIR 1985 SC 89, it has been indicated that consent is life line to link up the candidate with the action of the other person which may amount to corrupt prqctice unless it is spcifically pleaded and clearly proved beyond reasonable doubt, the candidate cannot be charged for the action of others.
– certain offending slogans were alleged to have been painted, in the case of Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1986 SC 1253. It was observed that there is glaring omission to mention the names of the workers said to have been employed by the respondent or his agents who have allegedly painted the slogans. So also no material particulars are given as regards the vehicles on which the said solgans have been said to have been pointed. There are no material paticulars or facts.
– no time, date and plae of the speeches delivered by the respondent have been mentioned . No exact extracts from the speeches are quoted. Nor have the material facts showing that such statements imputed to the respondent were indeed made been stated. No allegation is made to the effect that it was in order to prejudice the election of any candidate or in order to further the prospects of the election of the respondent. The essential ingredients of the corrupt practice have thus not been spelt out, as held in the case of Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1986 SC 1253.
– no copy of the poster was produced, as in the case of Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1986 SC 1253 and it must also be realized that the election petitioner did not seek to produce the copy of the poster. It was held that the fact remains that without the production of the poster, the cause of action would not be complete and it would be fatal to the election petition in as much as the material facts and particulars would be missing. So also it could not enable the respondent to meet the case. Apart from that the most important aspect of the matter is that in the absence of the names of the respondents work or material facts spelling out the knowledge and consent of the respondent or his election agent, the cause of action would be incomplete. So much so that the principles enunciated in the case of Nitai Singh v. Rao Birendra Singh, 1970(3) SCC 239.
– it is not pleaded, as evident from the election petition, as to how distribution the pamphlets, when they were distributed, where they were distributed and to whom they were distributed, in whose presence they were distributed etc etc. Pleading is ominously silent on these aspects. It is not even been pleaded that any particular person with the consent of the respondent or his election agent distributed the said pamphlets. The pleading as in the case of Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1986 SC 1253, does not spell out the cause of action. So also on account of the failure to mention the material facts, the Court could not have permitted the election petitioner to adduce evidence on this point. In the absence of material particulars as to who had printed, published or circulated the pamphlet, when, where and how it was circulated and which facts when to indicate the respondent’s consent to such distribution, the pleading would not disclose a cause of action. There would be nothing for the respondent to answer.
– in the case of Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1986 SC 1253, it was observed that the expression ‘corrupt practice’ employed in the Act would appear to be rather repulsive and offensive can it perhaps be replaced by a natural and unoffensive expression such as disapproved practices’ ? Since this aspect occurred to the Supreme Court and there was an occasion to do so, it was hinted at it and rest content at that.
See also decisions in Dhartipukar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1987 SC 1577 and Samar Singh v. Kedar Nath, AIR 1987 SC 1926.
The document discusses a legal case about an election dispute. The main issue is whether an election petition—an official challenge to the election result—was valid or should be dismissed because it lacked important facts and details.
The court explains that for an election challenge to be valid, the petition must include clear and complete facts that support the claim of corrupt practices or other issues. If these facts are missing or vague, the court can dismiss the petition early, without going into a full trial. This is because a petition without enough details cannot properly put the respondent on notice or give them a chance to respond.
The court also emphasizes that the law requires specific details about alleged misconduct, such as who did what, when, where, and how. If these details are not provided, the petition is considered incomplete and does not establish a proper cause of action—that is, a valid reason for the court to investigate further.
Additionally, the court discusses the proper procedures for dismissing or rejecting such petitions. It states that if the petition fails to meet the legal requirements, it can be rejected or dismissed early in the process, even before evidence is examined. This helps save time and resources, and prevents unnecessary legal battles that could distract elected representatives from their duties.
Finally, the court clarifies that words like "dismissed" or "rejected" are used to describe this early decision, and the choice of words does not change the legal effect. The goal is to ensure only well-founded cases proceed, maintaining the integrity of the electoral process.
Overall, the case underscores the importance of providing complete and specific facts in election petitions. Without these, the court has the authority to dismiss the challenge promptly, reinforcing the need for clear legal pleadings in election-related disputes.
Judgment
THAKKAR, J. :- An election petition having been dismissed on the ground that it did not comply with the mandatory requirement to furnish material facts and particulars enjoined by S. 83 of the Representation of the People Act and that it did not disclose a cause of action, the election petitioner has appealed to this Court under S. 116-A of the Representation of the People Act of 1951 (Act).
2. The respondent was elected as a Member of the Lok Sabha from the Amethi Constituency of Uttar Pradesh in the general elections held on 24th December, 1984 under Section 15 of the Act. Having secured the highest votes (3,65,041) the respondent was declared as elected on December 29, 1984. On 12th February, 1985, the last date for challenging the election, the appellant (who claims to be a worker of the Rashtriya Sanjay Manch), an elector from the Amethi constituency, filed the election petition giving rise to the present appeal.
3. The election of the returned candidate, respondent herein, was challenged on the ground of alleged corrupt practices as defined by the Act. Seventeen grounds set out in para 4 (1 to XVII) of the election petition were called into aid in support of the challenge. The respondent upon being served, instead of filing a written statement, raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the petition on a number of grounds inter alia contending that the petition was lacking in material facts and particulars and was defective on that account, and that since it did not disclose any cause of action it deserved to be dismissed. The appellant on his part filed two applications for amendment of the election petition. (None of which was for supplying the material facts and particulars which were missing). All these applications were heard together and were disposed of by the judgment under appeal upholding the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Respondent and dismissing the election petition. Hence this appeal.
4. In a democratic polity election is the mechanism devised to mirror the true wishes and the will of the people in the matter of choosing their political managers and their representatives who are supposed to echo their views and represent their interest in the legislature. The results of the Election are subject to judicial scrutiny and control only with an eye on two ends. First, to ascertain that the true will of the people is reflected in the results and second, to secure that only the persons who are eligible and qualified under the Constitution obtain the representation. In order that the true will" is ascertained the Courts will step in to protect and safeguard the purity of Elections, for, if corrupt practices have influenced the result, or the electorate has been a victim of fraud or deception or complusion on any essential matter, the will of the people as recorded in their votes is not the free and true will exercised intelligently by deliberate choice. It is not the will of the people in the true sense at all. And the Courts would, therefore, it stands to reason, be justified in setting aside, the election in accordance with law if the corrupt practices are established. So also when the essential qualifications for eligibility demanded by the constitutional requirements are not fulfilled, the fact that the successful candidate is the true choice of the people is a consideration which is totally irrelevant notwithstanding the fact that it would be virtually impossible to reenact the elections and reascertain the wishes of the people at the fresh elections the time scenario having changed. And also notwithstanding the fact that elections involve considerable expenditure of public revenue (not to speak of private funds) and result in loss of public time, and accordingly there would be good reason for not setting at naught the election which reflects the true will of the people lightly. In matters of election the will of the people must prevail and Courts would be understandably extre
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
