Back
2009(6) Supreme 707
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.K. Jain and H.L. Dattu, JJ.
Ram Sukh — Appellant
versus
Dinesh Aggarwal — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6128 of 2008
Decided on : 18-09-2009
Election Law – The success of a candidate who has won at an election should not be lightly interfered with and any petition seeking such interference must strictly conform to the requirements of the law – One of the essentials of the election law is to safeguard the purity of the election process and, therefore, the courts must zealously ensure that people do not get elected by flagrant breaches of that law or by indulging in corrupt practices, as enumerated in the Act. (Para 7)
Election Law – Material facts – It is mandatory that all “material facts” are set out in an election petition and it is also trite that if material facts are not stated in the petition, the same is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone – All primary or basic facts which are necessary either to prove the cause of action by plaintiff or defence by the defendant are “material facts”– Material facts are facts which, if established, would give the petitioner the relief asked for-But again, what could be said to be material facts would depend upon the facts of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down (Paras11,12)
Facts of the Case :
1. Respondent1 contesting election as an Indian National Congress candidate was declared elected to the State Legislative Assembly of Uttaranchal Appellant a candidate of Nationalist Congress Party, challenged election of respondent1 by filing an election petition. Election Petition was Dismissed by High Court on ground that it did not comply with the mandatory requirement of furnishing material facts so as to disclose cause of action and was not supported by an affidavit in the prescribed form.
2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
Instantly allegation of election petitioner was that Returning Officer failed to circulate attested signatures of his election agent to various polling stations and, hence failed to comply with para 12 of Chapter VII of Handbook for Returning Officers. To say the least, the pleading was vague and did not spell out as to how the election results were materially affected . These facts fell short of being “material facts” as contemplated in Section 83(1)(a) of the Act to constitute a complete cause of action in relation to allegation under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act. No case of the election petitioner that in the absence of his election agent there was some malpractice at the polling stations during the polling. For purpose of Section 100(1)(d)(iv), it was necessary for the election petitioner to aver specifically in what manner the result of the election insofar as it concerned respondent1, was materially affected due to said omission on the part of the Returning Officer. Unfortunately, such averment was missing in the election petition. High Court was justified in coming to conclusion that statement of material facts in the election petition was completely lacking and the petition was liable to be rejected at threshold on that ground.Appeal, having no merit was dismissed
Result : Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT
D.K. Jain, J.—
1. This appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short the ‘Act’) is directed against the judgment and order dated 15th January, 2008, rendered by the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition No.03 of 2007 (M/S). By the impugned order, the High Court, upholding the preliminary objection raised by the first respondent, has dismissed the election petition mainly on the ground that it did not comply with the mandatory requirement of furnishing material facts so as to disclose cause of action and was not supported by an affidavit in the prescribed form.
2. Election to the State Legislative Assembly of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) was held on 21st February, 2007. The results were declared on 27th February, 2007. The first respondent, who had contested the election as an Indian National Congress candidate, was declared elected. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘election petitioner’) having lost the election, as a candidate of the Nationalist Congress Party, challenged the election of the first respondent by filing an election petition under Section 80 read with Section 100(1)(b) and (d) of the Act. The election of the returned candidate was challenged mainly on the grounds:
(i) that the election petitioner having submitted 2 sets of the requisite Form-8 (Praroop-8) in respect of his election agent Manbir Singh Dagur before the turning Officer, who having obtained the signatures of the election petitioner as also of the polling/election agent in proforma (Anulagnak-22), deliberately did not send the signed Anulagnak-22 of the election petitioner to different polling stations, with the result that his polling agent was not permitted by the polling officer to act as such on the date of polls;
(ii) that the Returning Officer deliberately delayed the distribution of Anulagnak-22 at various polling stations and on account of inaction on his part, election petitioner’s supporters got confused and either did not vote or voted in favour of the first respondent, an Indian National Congress candidate;
(iii) that the first respondent put pressure on the election petitioner to withdraw from the contest and on his refusal to do so, a rumour was spread by the first respondent that the election petitioner had withdrawn from the election fray and thus the first respondent used corrupt practice;
(iv) that the first respondent got a fabricated ‘Fatva’ from Devband circulated among the Muslim voters asking them to cast votes in his favour and thus the Muslim voters were unduly influenced by the issuance of the aforesaid religious Fatva - a corrupt practice;
(v) that the Polling Officers at various polling stations did not seal Electronic Voting Machines in presence of the election agent of the election petitioner and other candidates and further before the commencement of counting the Returning Officer did not get the seal of strong room certified from any of the polling agents; and
(vi) that the Electronic Voting Machines of various polling stations were either changed or were used after the polling time was over, showing misuse of the official machinery in support of the first respondent and, thus, putting a question mark on the fairness of the election.
3. The first respondent on being served with notice, instead of filing a written statement, filed an application under Order VI Rules 16 and 17 and Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘the Code’) read with Section 86 of the Act raising a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition, inter-alia, on the ground that the petition was lacking in material facts and particulars and was also defective for want of requisite affidavit in support of allegations of corrupt practice and that since it did not disclose any cause of action, it deserved to be dismissed at the threshold. It was pleaded that on account of failure on the part of the election petitioner to file an affidavit i
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
