1. Challenge to High Court order allowing amendment of an election petition to include non-disclosure of criminal antecedents under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1753
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.
Yendapalli Srinivasulu Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Vemireddy Pattabhirami Reddy and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7951 of 2022, SLP (C) No. 3267 of 2020
Decided On : 19-10-2022
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : P. Vishwanath Setty, G.N. Reddy, Hemal Kiritkumar Sheth.
For the Respondents: Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Abhijit Basu, Tatini Basu.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : P. Vishwanath Setty, G.N. Reddy, Hemal Kiritkumar Sheth.
For the Respondents: Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Abhijit Basu, Tatini Basu.
Amendments to an election petition to include non-disclosure of criminal antecedents as a ground for improper acceptance of nomination are permissible under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, provided they do not introduce a new ground of 'corrupt practice' restricted by Section 86(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Headnote:
Amendment - Election Petition - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Section 33A, 86(5), 100(1), 125A
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a returned candidate, challenged the order granting an application for amendment of the election petition filed by the respondent No. 1. The amendment sought to include allegations of non-disclosure of criminal cases in the nomination form, which was contested by the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court allowed the amendment, stating that the amendment did not introduce a new ground of challenge and was required to be allowed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the amendment to the election petition, introducing allegations of non-disclosure of criminal cases, was permissible after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing the election petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the amendment was permissible as it did not introduce a new ground of challenge and had foundation in the original petition.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court did not comment on the merits of the case as sought to be pleaded by way of amendment or any other aspect relating to the merits of the issues involved in the election petition.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether amendment to include non-disclosure of criminal antecedents constitutes a new ground of corrupt practice barred by limitation or a statutory non-compliance allowing amendment. (Para 8 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
3. The amendment seeks to show the nomination was improper due to statutory non-compliance, not to introduce a new corrupt practice, thus falling outside Section 86(5) restrictions. (Para 17 , 18 )
4. Amendments to election petitions not pertaining to corrupt practices are permissible under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, subject to the Act of 1951. (Para 17 , 18 )
5. Appeal dismissed; High Court order allowing the amendment of the election petition upheld. (Para 19 )
6. Can an election petition be amended to include non-disclosure of criminal antecedents?
Yes, if the amendment is framed as a ground for improper acceptance of nomination due to non-compliance with statutory requirements rather than as a corrupt practice, it is permissible. (Para 18 )
7. What is the effect of Section 86(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 on amendments?
Section 86(5) prohibits amendments that introduce particulars of a corrupt practice not previously alleged. However, amendments not relating to corrupt practices are governed by the general powers under the Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 17 )
8. Does non-disclosure of criminal antecedents always constitute a corrupt practice in election petitions?
While some precedents suggest non-disclosure can be a corrupt practice, the court held that it can also be pleaded as a statutory non-compliance leading to the improper acceptance of a nomination. (Para 16 , 18 )
JUDGMENT :
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard Mr. P. Vishwanath Setty, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Byrapaneni Suyodhan, learned counsel for the respondents finally at this stage itself.
3. By way of this appeal, the appellant-returned candidate, whose election has been called into question by the respondent No. 1 by way of Election Petition No. 1 of 2017 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, seeks to question the order dated 06.12.2019 whereby, an application for amendment of the petition has been granted.
4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant aspects to be noticed for the purpose of this appeal are that in the election petition filed by the respondent No. 1 herein, essentially two broad grounds have been urged. One being of improper acceptance of the nomination of the returned candidate, i.e. the appellant herein, and the second being of improper receipt of invalid votes and improper rejection of valid votes.
5. The second ground as referred hereinabove is not of relevance for the purpose of the present appeal. The relevant part of the matter herein is that in the petition as filed, the appellant has, inter-alia, prayed for the following relief:
“(B) Declare the acceptance of the nomination paper filed by the 1st Respondent/the Returned candidate with substantial defects in the affidavit as illegal, improper and consequently set aside/reject the same.”
6. In relation to the aforementioned relief, the election petitioner (respondent No. 1) has stated that the nomination paper of the appellant ought to have been rejected for being not accompanied by a proper affidavit, particularly when the verification part was not carrying the signature of the appellant. The other submissions are that the affidavit was drawn up on certain stamp papers but, one of them was not purchased in the name of the appellant and was purchased by some other person and then, the name of the appellant was inserted by erasing the name of the original purchaser. It had also been submitted that there had been certain blank spaces for which, the affidavit was rendered nugatory and these being the defects of substantial nature, the nomination was required to be rejected.
7. It would be apposite to notice that the result of the election in question was declared on 21.03.2017 and the election petition under consideration was filed on 27.04.2017. Leaving aside other proceedings, the relevant aspect for the present appeal is that on 27.03.2018, the election petitioner (respondent No. 1) moved an application, being Interlocutory Application No. 2 of 2018, seeking permission to amend the election petition, so as to incorporate the averments in the following terms:
“8.....(a) It is submitted that as per section 33(A)(i) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, a candidate shall furnish the information as to whether he is accused of any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more in a pending case in which charge has been framed by the court of competent Jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the returned candidate/1st respondent herein filed a false in Form-26 by not disclosing the criminal case pending against him in which he is accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more and a charge has already been framed by the court of competent Jurisdiction as on the date filing his nomination. I respectfully submit that the petitioner has deliberately filed as a false affidavit in Form-26 by not disclosing the criminal case pending against him as the FIR in the said criminal case was filed on 3.10.2011 and the same has been registered as Crime No. 188/2011 on the file of the Gudur Rural Police Station, Nellore District. The petitioner has been arrayed as A3. The Court has taken cognizance of the same as C.C. No. 370/2012 and the charges were also framed as on the day of filing nomination. Later the returned candidate/1st respondent herein has been convicted for the offences under
