2016 Supreme(SC) 657

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. Chelameswar, Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.
Ajay Arjun Singh – Appellant
Versus
Sharadendu Tiwari & Others – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8254 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4512 of 2015)
Decided On : 23-08-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
Authority under Order VI Rule 16 must be exercised with circumspection and on the basis of some rational principles. In an election petition charges which are vague may be struck off. The averments in the petition must be examined to determine whether grounds in rule 16 are met.
Allegations of expenditure in excess of limits prescribed in section 77 are matter of fact to be established on evidence. Cannot be struck out.
Preliminary objections, if any, in an election petition are to be taken at the earliest point of time and in one go.
Law declared that later of such successive petitions if filed beyond six months as mandated by Parliament must be dismissed by High Courts in limine.

Headnote:(a) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VI Rule 16 – Authority under Order VI Rule 16 must be exercised with circumspection and on the basis of some rational principles – In an election petition charges which are vague may be struck off – The averments in the petition must be examined to determine whether grounds in rule 16 are met. (Para 5, 7, 8)

       AIR 1965 SC 610; (2012) 7 SCC 788 – Relied upon

       (1876) 1 Q B D 374 – Referred

       (b) Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 123(1) – Para 19 of the election petition pertains to section 123(1) – Appellant not disputing allegations under para 19 but trying to explain it circumstances – Truthfulness or legality of the explanation matter of trial – If the explanation is found untrue or legally unacceptable, allegations in para 19 is sufficient to hold the Appellant guilty of the corrupt practice – High Court rightly refused to strike it off. (Para 13)

       (c) Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 123(6) – All other allegations (para 14, 15, 16 and 17 of election petition) sought to be struck off pertain to section 123(6) and relate to expenditure in excess of limit prescribed u/s 77 – Allegations and counter allegations regarding quantity and quality of the material used by the appellant during the course of his election campaign and value of such material – Pure questions of fact – Required to be established on evidence – Burden of establishing the truth of all those allegations is essentially on the respondent/election petitioner – Striking off such pleadings – Not warranted. (Para 14, 15)

       (d) Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 – Rule 90 – Determination of rate list by Election Commission – Cannot be conclusive – There is no statutory basis for such exercise – Further, quantity and quality of material used in the election campaign and real cost of material actually used by any candidate – Always questions of fact, required to be established in evidence – High Court rightly refused to strike off such pleadings. (Para 18)

       (e) Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 77 – Allegation of suppression of expenditure incurred on public meeting of Rahul Gandhi at Sidhi, outside appellant’s constituency including expenditure on hiring large number of vehicles for moblising voters – Appellant not denying hiring of vehicles – Such allegation cannot be struck out. (Para 21)

       (f) Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 77 – Allegation of suppression of expenditure incurred on construction of pandals or barricades in connection with the abovementioned meeting of Shri Rahul Gandhi – Appellant not making categoric assertion of not incurring any expenditure in connection with that meeting – Allegation cannot be struck out. (Para 22, 23)

       (g) Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 77 – Allegation of suppression of expenditure on use of helicopter – Appellant being star campaigner claiming that the expenditure cannot be added to his account – Only expenses on travel of star campaigners are exempted – Not all expenses like erection of pandal etc – Allegation not irrelevant – Cannot be struck out. (Para 24, 29, 30)

       (h) Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 77 – Allegation of appellant using helicopter on many occasions during the relevant period only between Bhopal and Sidhi, both being outside his constituency – Appellant being star campaigner was required to campaign for his political party, not only in his constituency but also in other constituencies of the State – In absence of any allegation of the appellant using helicopter for traveling within 76-Churahat constituency for the purpose of campaigning, expenditure incurred on that account cannot be included in his election expenditure – Paragraph 14M of the election petition struck off. (Para 31)

       (i) Election laws – Appellant initially filing petition under Order VII Rule 11, CPC for dismissing the election petition – Subsequently after a long gap filing present petition under Order Order VI Rule 16 for striking out pleadings – Such practice deprecated – Preliminary objections, if any, in an election petition are to be taken at the earliest point of time and in one go – Law declared that later of such successive petitions if filed beyond six months as mandated by Parliament must be dismissed by High Courts in limine. (Para 32)

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant herein is the returned candidate from 76 -Churhat Assembly constituency of the State of Madhya Pradesh in the General Elections held in the year 2013. He was a candidate sponsored by the Indian National Congress Party and won by margin of 19,356 votes. Challenging the legality of the election of the appellant, the first respondent herein, one of the other candidates at the said election, filed Election Petition No.1 of 2014.

       The appellant herein filed I.A. No.12911 of 2014 invoking Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) praying various paragraphs of the election petition be struck off on the ground that the allegations contained in those paragraphs are frivolous and vexatious etc.

       By the order impugned in this appeal, the said I.A. was dismissed.

       Finding of the Court:

       None of the paragraphs except para 14M of thye election petition is liable to be struck out.

       Result: Appeal partly allowed.