IMPORTANT POINT
Election Petition – False disclosure by successful candidate – Elector or voter’s right to know about full background of a candidate, evolved through court decisions, is an added dimension to rich tapestry of our constitutional jurisprudence – Alleged non-compliance with statutory and Election Commission mandated regulations, and their legal effect, cannot be examined in what are essentially summary proceedings under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, or even under Order XII Rule 6, CPC.

JUDGMENT :

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. Leave granted. The present appeal by special leave questions a judgment and order of the Telangana High Court¹[Election Petition No.34/2019, rejecting IA 01/2020] dismissing an application which sought rejection of the respondent’s election petition. The appellant had contended that the election petition (hereafter “the petition”) did not disclose any cause of action and was barred in law and was liable to be rejected.

2. The appellant was a successful candidate in the election conducted for the Zaheerabad Parliamentary Constituency on 11.04.2019. He was declared elected on 23.05.2019, defeating the respondent (hereafter referred to as “the election petitioner”) by a margin of 6229 votes. The respondent preferred an election petition under Sections 81 and 84 read with Sections 100(1)(d)(i)(ii)(iii) & (iv) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereafter “the Act”). The election petition alleged, amongst others, that the appellant had furnished false information in Form 26 (election affidavit); that the Returning Officer had not followed the Election Commission’s guidelines dated 10.10.2018; that the appellant filed false information in C-4 report furnished to the District Election Officer and that there was no previous publication of papers, regarding pending cases against the appellant and those in which he was convicted. Other allegations included failure to follow additional requirements such as the font size mentioned in the form for publication; listing of cases in separate rows; failure to have the pending cases disclosed in a widely circulated newspaper/news channels, and disclosure of information with respect to cases in which the appellant was convicted and lastly that his name was shown in a misleading manner in the newspaper publication.

3. After the election petition was filed, the appellant applied, under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter “CPC”) for its rejection. It was contended inter alia that the mandatory requirements under Sections 81 and 81 (3) of the Act were not followed; it was alleged that – there was no pleading as to how the nomination paper was improperly accepted; that there was no need to disclose the so-called criminal cases as they did not fall within Section 8 of the Act and Section 33A of the Act as the appellant had not been sentenced to imprisonment of more than one year. As a result, non-disclosure of conviction under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was not required. It was further alleged that the offences pleaded against the appellant were not criminal and other allegations with respect to publication and font size etc. were not substantial and on the other hand, there was substantial compliance with the law and the guidelines. The election petitioner/respondent resisted the application after which the appellant filed a rejoinder.

4. During the course of the proceedings, on 15.11.2021, the appellant filed a memo²[Registered as USR 69931/2021] which stated that he had obtained certified copies of the order sheet dated 28.06.2013; regarding seizure of property in CF 97/2013, from the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Garhwa and related criminal case. Translations of those into English were made available. These documents were filed in the election proceedings to contest the election petitioner’s assertion. The appellant also applied under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereafter “CrPC”) read with Section 195 of the CrPC, broadly alleging that the documents produced as true copies along with the election petition and the averments made were false, calling for appropriate criminal proceedings to be drawn up against the respondent.

5. The High Court had earlier heard the application³[I.A. No. 1/2020 in E.P. No. 34/2019] and reserved orders on 23.12.2021. The judgment was delivered on 15.06.202