Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
Karim Uddin Barbhuiya – Appellant
Versus
Aminul Haque Laskar and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6282 of 2023
Decided On : 08-04-2024
Election Petition - Corrupt Practices - The Representation of the People’s Act, 1951, Section 100(1)(b) and Section 100(1)(d)(i) - Section 33A, Section 36, Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 - The Election Petition lacked concise statement of material facts and full particulars of the alleged corrupt practice, and failed to demonstrate how the result of the election was materially affected by the improper acceptance of the nomination, leading to its dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's election to the Legislative Assembly was challenged by the respondent through an Election Petition, alleging false declaration of educational qualification, suppression of information, and corrupt practices. The appellant sought rejection of the Election Petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Finding of the Court:
The Election Petition lacked concise statement of material facts and full particulars of the alleged corrupt practice, and failed to demonstrate how the result of the election was materially affected by the improper acceptance of the nomination, leading to its dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
Issues: The sufficiency of the allegations in the Election Petition, compliance with the statutory requirements of the RP Act, and the cause of action for challenging the election.
Ratio Decidendi: The Election Petition must contain a concise statement of material facts and full particulars of any alleged corrupt practice, and demonstrate how the result of the election was materially affected by the improper acceptance of the nomination. Failure to do so may lead to the dismissal of the Election Petition under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
Final Decision: The Election Petition was dismissed, and the appeal was allowed accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. The instant Appeal filed by the appellant-Karim Uddin Barbhuiya (Original Respondent No. 1) is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 26.04.2023 passed by the Gauhati High Court at Guwahati in I.A. (Civil) No. 1278 of 2021 in Election Petition No. 01 of 2021, whereby the High Court has dismissed the said IA filed by the present appellant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the Election Petition filed by the respondent No. 1-Aminul Haque Laskar (Original Election Petitioner).
2. A brief conspectus of relevant facts may be stated as under:
(ii) On 11.03.2021, the appellant filed his nomination papers as a candidate of All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF) along with the Declaration, by way of an affidavit in Form-26 of The Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Said Rules). The last date for scrutiny of nomination papers was 15.03.2021.
(iii) On 01.04.2021, the election for the Legislative Assembly Constituency no. 10, Sonai was concluded and the appellant secured 71,937 votes out of total votes polled, while the respondent no. 1 herein secured 52,283 votes in his favour.
(iv) On 04.06.2021, the respondent no. 1 (Election Petitioner) filed the Election Petition being no. 01 of 2021 before the High Court under Section 100(1)(b) and Section 100(1)(d)(i) of The Representation of the People’s Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the RP Act) questioning the election of the appellant, mainly making four allegations - (a) false declaration of educational qualification of B.A. (b) suppression of the educational qualification of Diploma in Engineering (c) suppression of bank loan details of M/s. Allied Concern and (d) suppression of un-liquidated provident fund dues.
(v) On 24.06.2021, the High Court issued notice in the said Election Petition.
(vi) On 23.08.2021, the appellant herein (Original Respondent No. 1- Returned Candidate) filed an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC read with Section 86 of the RP Act for rejection of the Election Petition, which was registered as I.A. (Civil) No. 1278 of 2021 in the said Election Petition.
(vii) On 26.04.2023, the High Court passed the impugned judgment dismissing the said I.A. filed by the appellant. Hence, the present Appeal has been filed.
3. The Appeal has been contested by the respondent no. 1 and the respondent no. 13 by filing their respective counter affidavits.
4. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Kapil Sibal for the appellant and Mr. Jaideep Gupta for the respondent no. 1 at length.
5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kapil Sibal appearing for the appellant vehemently submitted that the respondent no. 1 has sought to upset the election results by filing the baseless, motivated and mala-fide election petition, based on mere bald allegations that the information disclosed in Form No. 26 filed by the appellant along with his nomination form was inaccurate. None of the allegations made in the Election Petition is supported by either primary documents or reliable source of information. The pleadings in the Election Petition are not the averments of material facts but are facts based speculation and do not disclose any triable issue. He further submitted that the Election Petition does not disclose a complete cause of action, nor does it contain all “material facts” as required under Section 83(1)(a) and also does not plead “full particulars” of the alleged corrupt practice of undue influence, as required under Section 81(1)(b) of the RP Act.
6. Mr. Sibal taking us to the particulars disclosed by the appellant in Form No. 26 submitted that there was neither suppression of educational qualification nor suppression of bank loan details or of unliquidated provident fund dues, as alleged by the respondent no. 1. H
The Election Petition must contain a concise statement of material facts and full particulars of any alleged corrupt practice, and demonstrate how the result of the election was materially affected b....
Election petitions must contain concise statements of material facts; omission of a single material fact leads to dismissal for lack of cause of action.
An election petition must contain concise material facts and particulars as per the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951; failure to do so results in dismissal.
Allegations of corrupt practice in an election petition must be supported by specific material facts and full particulars as required by Section 83 of the RP Act of 1951. Failure to plead such materi....
Clause (4) of Section 123 of Act shows that publication is required to be reasonably calculated by a candidate or his agent.
Election petitions must plead concise material facts under Section 83(1)(a) RP Act to disclose cause of action; deficient, vague pleadings warrant dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 CPC without trial.
An election petition without material facts relating to a corrupt practice is not valid, and once the charge of corrupt practice fails, the election petition is rendered infructuous due to the end of....
Without proper verification and without requisite affidavits cause of action remains incomplete.
Important Point :Election petitions must contain concise statements of material facts and particulars of corrupt practices; failure to comply results in dismissal.
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
