Back
2012 (3) Supreme 517
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir and Chelameswar, JJ.
Ishwardas Rohani — Appellants
versus
Alok Mishra & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No.4189 of 2012
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.30417 of 2009)
Decided on : 03-05-2012
Representation of the People Act, 1951- Section 123 (1)(A) and (B), (2), (6) and (7) –Code of Civil Procedure,1908-Order VII Rule 11 read with Order VI Rule 16 -Election Petition filed by respondent1 challenging election of Appellant on the ground of corrupt practice-Application thereagainst- Partly allowed by High Court directing Respondent1 to delete the pleadings relating to the voters’ list and the Model Code of Conduct and to move an appropriate application for amending the pleadings in the light of the objections raised by the Appellant –Appeal- A charge of corrupt practice has a two dimensional effect, namely, its impact on the returned candidate has to be viewed from the point of view of the candidate’s future political and public life and from the point of view of the electorate to ensure the purity of the election process-Hence , there has to be a balance in which provisions of Section 81(3) of the 1951 Act are duly complied with to safeguard the interest, both of individual candidate, as well as of the public-Instantly, no error committed by High Court in directing the Election Petitioner to cure defects in the Election Petition – Even though provisions have to be strictly construed, but that does not mean that any defect in Election Petition cannot be allowed to be cured in the public interest- If after an opportunity is given, still no steps are taken by Election Petitioner to cure the defects, then rigours of procedure indicated by 1951 Act, come into effect with full vigour-No reason to interfere with impugned order of High Court - Appeal dismissed (Paras 22 to 24)
Facts of the Case :
A. Respondent 1 herein in the instant case filed Election Petition challenging the election of the Appellant on the ground of corrupt practice, as contemplated in Sub- Sections (1)(A) and (B), (2), (6) and (7) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
B. In the pending Election Petition, an Application, was filed on behalf of Appellant, under Order VII Rule 11 read with Order VI Rule 16 of “C.P.C.”, praying that Election Petition filed by Respondent 1 be rejected, on ground that except for making vague allegations of corrupt practice, Respondent 1 had failed to disclose material facts and particulars in respect thereof. It was alleged that Respondent 1 had failed to comply with the provisions of Section 81(3)(a) and (b), which are mandatory and in the absence whereof no cause of action could be said to have been available to Election Petitioner to seek any relief thereunder.
C. High Court held that although, allegations of corrupt practice had not been properly drafted, Election Petition could not be rejected on said ground. As far as the Application under Order VI Rule 16 C.P.C. was concerned, High Court observed that non- revision of voters list was not a ground set out in Section 100 of the 1951 Act for declaring an election to be void. High Court also held that violation of Model Code of Conduct could not also be treated as a ground for declaring an election to be void. High Court allowed the Appellant’s application in part and directed Appellant to:
(i) delete the pleadings relating to voters’ list and Model Code of Conduct;
(ii) move an appropriate application for amending the pleadings .
D. Aggrieved, Appellant has filed the present Special Leave to Appeal.
Findings of the Court :
A. A charge of corrupt practice has a two dimensional effect, namely, its impact on the returned candidate has to be viewed from the point of view of the candidate’s future political and public life and from the point of view of the electorate to ensure the purity of the election process. Accordingly, there has to be a balance in which the provisions of Section 81(3) of the 1951 Act are duly complied with to safeguard the interest, both of the individual candidate, as well as of the public.
B. In this case, while accepting the case made out by the Appellant regarding the deficiencies in the Election Petition, High Court, did not commit any error in directing the Election Petitioner to cure the defects in the Election Petition, which had been brought out during the hearing of the Election Petition. There is little doubt that provisions have to be strictly construed, but that does not mean that any defect in the Election Petition cannot be allowed to be cured in the public interest. If after an opportunity is given, still no steps are taken by the Election Petitioner to cure the defects which are noticed, then the rigours of the procedure indicated by the 1951 Act, come into effect with full vigour. Hence held that there was no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court appealed against . Appeal was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Altamas Kabir, J.-Leave granted.
2. The Respondent No.1 herein, Shri Alok Mishra, contested the 2008 elections to the Madhya Pradesh State Assembly as a candidate of the Indian National Congress Party from Cantt. Legislative Assembly No.99 Constituency, Jabalpur. He was defeated in the elections by the Appellant herein as a candidate of the Bharatiya Janata Party. The said Respondent filed Election Petition No.22 of 2009, challenging the election of the Appellant on the ground of corrupt practice, as contemplated in Sub- Sections (1)(A) and (B), (2), (6) and (7) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the “1951 Act”.
3. The grounds relating to corrupt practice, as alleged by the Respondent No.1 herein, inter alia, were to the following effect:
(i) as an Ex-M.L.A. and Ex-Speaker of the Vidhan Sabha and being a close associate of the Chief Minister of the State, the Appellant was able to exert undue influence on the Collector, the District Returning Officer and other authorities for procuring their assistance for the furtherance of his prospects in the elections;
(ii) that on 2nd November, 2008, when the Respondent No.1 was returning to Jabalpur from New Delhi, as the authorized candidate of the Indian National Congress, his supporters, who came to meet him at the railway station, were arrested, whereas the very next day, no action was taken against the supporters of the Appellant herein who had deployed as many as 300 vehicles in the election rally organised on the occasion of the filing of his nomination, although, permission had been given for use of only 27 vehicles. The Appellant was allowed to erect “welcome gates” at various places and used unauthorized vehicles and also put up flags, hoardings and posters on electric poles and even on temples, despite the objections raised by the Respondent No.1 herein;
(iii) during his election campaign, the Appellant distributed school bags reflecting the name of the Appellant, as also his party flag amongst the children of the voters and huge amounts of money were also paid through cheques under the garb of financial assistance by Garib Sahayata Samiti. Apart from the above, clothes, sweets, blankets, cheques for amounts of Rs.500/- to the female voters and identity and ration cards, were distributed amongst the voters by the supporters of the Appellant, but no action was taken either against the Appellant or his agent for resorting to such corrupt practice. Accordingly, in the election petition the Respondent No.1, inter alia, prayed for a declaration that the election of the Appellant herein, Ishwardas Rohani, be declared as void and he be declared as the returned candidate.
4. In the pending Election Petition No.22 of 2009, an Application, being I.A.No.58 of 2009, was filed on behalf of the Appellant herein, under Order VII Rule 11 read with Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as “C.P.C.”, praying that the Election Petition filed by the Respondent No.1 be rejected, inter alia, on the ground that except for making vague allegations of corrupt practice, the Respondent No.1 (Election Petitioner) had failed to disclose material facts and particulars in respect thereof. Another ground of challenge was that the Respondent No.1 had failed to comply with the provisions of Section 81(3)(a) and (b), which are mandatory and in the absence whereof no cause of action could be said to have been available to the Election Petitioner to seek any relief thereunder.
5. I.A.No.58 of 2009, which was filed by the Appellant under Order VII Rule 11 read with Order VI Rule 16 C.P.C. for rejection of the Election Petition or for a direction to set out pleadings specified thereunder, was taken up for hearing by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 16th July, 2009. After considering the facts involved in the Election Petition, as also in the Application filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with Order VI Rule 16 of th
gpt-4
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
