IMPORTANT POINT
Without proper verification and without requisite affidavits cause of action remains incomplete.

JUDGMENT

Altamas Kabir, J.-The appellant herein, who contested the parliamentary elections held on 16th April, 2009 for the No.05 – Kozhikode Constituency of the Lok Sabha, challenged the election of the Respondent, Shri M.K. Raghavan, who was the returned candidate from the said constituency, by way of an Election Petition filed under Section 81 read with Sections 100, 101 and 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the “1951 Act”. The Appellant contested the election as the official candidate of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), hereinafter referred to as the “CPI(M)” led by the Left Democratic Front, hereinafter referred to as the “LDF”, whereas the Respondent No.1 was a candidate of the Indian National Congress and he contested the election as the candidate of the United Democratic Front, hereinafter referred to as the “UDF”.

2. The ground on which the election of the Respondent No.1 was challenged was that he had published false statements with regard to the Appellant and thereby committed corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(4) of the 1951 Act, which provides that the publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, of any statement of fact which is false in relation to the personal character, conduct of any candidate, shall be deemed to be guilty of corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 of the 1951 Act. The details of the publications have been set out in paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment and are as follows:

“”A. “Corrupt practice” by the publication of allegedly false statements in the form of –

(1) Annexure A (“Jagratha” (“Be careful”) Newsletter bearing no date) allegedly published on 14-4-2009 and distributed on 15-4-2009

(2) Annexure H (Anonymous notice allegedly published on 14-4-2009 and 15-4-2009

(3) Annexure K (Report in the Mathrubhumi daily dated 31-3-2009 of the speech of M.P. Veerendra Kumar

(4) Annexure L Hand Bill dated 11-4-2009 allegedly distributed on 14- 4-2009

(5) Annexure M Wall poster allegedly published on 14-4-2009 & 15-4- 2009

(6) Annexure N Wall poster -do- -do- AND

B. Fielding of other candidates having similarity in names.”

3. The highlights of the six publications have also been shown in a tabular chart in paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment and speak for themselves.

4. During the hearing of the petition, a question was raised with regard to the maintainability of the petition for want of a complete cause of action. After considering the submissions made on such ground, the High Court accepted the objection taken with regard to the maintainability of the Election Petition and dismissed the same.

5. Appearing for the Appellant, Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the learned Single Judge of the High Court had dismissed the Election Petition on two grounds :

(i) The Election Petition did not make out a complete cause of action in so far as it did not contain averments regarding the knowledge of the Respondent No.1 about the falsity of the statements in relation to each of the publications; and

(ii) The false statements did not relate to the personal character or candidature of the candidate within the meaning of false statements in section 123(4) of the Act.

6. On behalf of the Respondent No.1, a preliminary objection was raised at the time of hearing that the Election Petition was incomplete and was liable to be dismissed as it did not contain the requisite affidavit in Form 25, as required under the proviso to Section 83(1) of the 1951 Act read with Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Mr. Venugopal contended that the trial of an Election Petition was a quasi-criminal proceeding which entailed that the statutory requirements for an Election Petition had to be strictly construed. Of course, it is also necessary to protect the purity and sobriety of elections by ensuring that the candidates did not secure v