1. Election petition challenging election under Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 — Alleged non-disclosure in nomination papers — Application for leave to file replication to written statement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 433
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Sheikh Noorul Hassan – Appellant
Versus
Nahakpam Indrajit Singh and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1389 of 2024, Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 11136 of 2023
Decided On : 08-05-2024
Important Points
In election petitions under the 1951 Act, subsequent pleadings (replications) are permissible under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC with court leave, provided they clarify or rebut new facts raised in the written statement without introducing a new cause of action or inconsistent pleas.
Subject
Election Law - Election Petitions
Act Referred
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE: O.8 R.9, O.6 R.1
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT: S.100(1)(d)(i), S.81, S.82, S.117, S.87, S.86(5)
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT: S.100(1)(d)(i), S.81, S.82, S.117, S.87, S.86(5)
Headnote
Replication - Election Petition - Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 - Section 100(1)(d)(i)(ii)(iv) and Section 100(1)(b)
Fact of the Case:
The election petitioner sought a declaration that the election of the returned candidate is null and void under specific sections of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, alleging non-disclosure of necessary details in the nomination paper and affidavit.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court allowed the application seeking leave to file a replication, observing that the replication sought to explain and clarify the averments made in the written statement, and did not introduce new facts or a new cause of action.
Issues: Whether subsequent pleading in an election petition is permissible and under what circumstances leave to file such subsequent pleading may be granted by the Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that, subject to the provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 and the rules made thereunder, an election petition can be tried in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court is empowered to grant leave to an election petitioner to file a replication, but such leave should not be granted mechanically and must be justified to ensure a fair and effective trial of the issues already raised.
Final Decision: The Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, with no order as to costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. David Ahongsangbam, Adv. Mr. S Gunabanta Meitei, Adv. Mr. B R Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raj Singh, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Banju, AOR Mr. Sanajaoba Pheiroijam, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. David Ahongsangbam, Adv. Mr. S Gunabanta Meitei, Adv. Mr. B R Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raj Singh, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Banju, AOR Mr. Sanajaoba Pheiroijam, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Whether subsequent pleadings are permissible in election petitions under the 1951 Act — Whether replication introduces time-barred new facts versus clarifying existing pleadings. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Section 87 of the 1951 Act incorporates CPC procedure — Order VIII Rule 9 CPC permits replication with leave to clarify facts newly raised in written statements. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 20 , 21 )
4. High Courts may grant leave for replication in election petitions under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC, provided it clarifies existing pleas without introducing new material facts. (Para 20 , 21 )
5. Appeal dismissed — Order granting leave to file replication upheld. (Para 26 )
6. Is a subsequent pleading, such as a replication, permissible in an election petition under the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951?
Yes. Under Section 87 of the 1951 Act, election petitions are tried according to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Consequently, the court may grant leave for subsequent pleadings under Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC. (Para 8 , 15 , 16 , 20 )
7. Under what circumstances should a court grant leave to file a replication in an election petition?
Leave should be granted if the petitioner needs to explain or clarify facts newly raised in the written statement to ensure a fair trial, provided the replication is not a substitute for amendment and does not introduce a new cause of action or inconsistent pleas. (Para 10 , 21 )
8. What is the distinction between material facts and particulars in the context of election petitions?
Material facts are primary facts upon which a party's cause of action or defence depends and must be pleaded. Particulars are details that amplify or refine these material facts to ensure a fair trial and prevent surprise. (Para 18 , 19 )
9. Can a replication be used to introduce new material facts or corrupt practices in an election petition?
No. Material facts and particulars of corrupt practices must be stated in the original election petition. Facts introduced for the first time in a replication, especially after the limitation period, cannot be tried or made the subject of issues. (Para 17 , 18 )
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ MISRA, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Manipur at Imphal1 [High Court] dated 14.03.2023, whereby leave has been granted to the election petitioner (the first respondent herein) to file a replication in answer to the new facts asserted in the written statement filed by the returned candidate (the appellant herein).
Factual Matrix
2. The first respondent filed an election petition seeking a declaration that the election of the returned candidate, namely, the appellant herein, is null and void under: (a) Section 100(1) (d) (i) (ii) and (iv) and (b) Section 100 (1) (b) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.2 [1951 Act] In addition, thereto, a prayer was made to declare the election petitioner as duly elected from concerned legislative constituency3 [Kshetrigao Assembly Constituency] of 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly.
3. In the election petition, it was alleged, inter-alia, that the returned candidate had failed to make necessary disclosures in the nomination paper/the affidavit (i.e. Form 26) which had a material bearing on the election result. In support of that allegation, particulars of such non-disclosure/incorrect disclosure were detailed in the election petition. These allegations, however, were not only traversed in the written statement filed by the returned candidate (i.e. the appellant herein) but additional facts were also laid out therein. As a result, the election petitioner filed an application seeking leave to file a replication, which came to be allowed by the impugned order of the High Court.
Impugned Order
4. The High Court vide impugned order allowed the application seeking leave to file subsequent pleading while, inter-alia, observing as follows:
“15. The petitioner has filed the election petition, inter-alia, on the ground that the first respondent has failed to disclose the details - status of his bank accounts with respective balances in Form 26. The first respondent has also failed to disclose the details of liability and also the car bearing DL4CNB4776 owned by him in Form 26.
16. On a reading of the election petition, it is seen that the petitioner has also taken other grounds. However, in reply to the ground for non-disclosure of the account details, the first respondent replied in his written statement that the said accounts opened for establishment of Self Help Group, namely, Panthoibi SHG, Yaiphabi SHG. Paragraphs 12 and 17 of the written statement speak about the opening of the bank accounts and also stated that some of the accounts have NIL balance and were lying in a dormant condition at the time of filing nomination papers. Therefore, there is no necessity to disclose the same in Form 26. The opening of the accounts for establishment of Self Help Groups, according to the petitioner, is new plea and the petitioner has to controvert the said facts by clarifying the relation between the accounts and Self Help Groups.
17. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accounts are joint accounts which actually belonged to the first respondent and others and nowhere mentioned that these accounts are the social or charitable account. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to merit consideration.
18. The petitioner being election petitioner and the election petition being civil litigation, the celebrated principle of variance between pleading and proof is very much attracted in the matter of appreciation of evidence. It is lawful to the petitioner to file an application to add to his pleas already made in the election petition and the only condition thereon is the leave of the court. Even in cases that require leave, it is open to the court to grant leave with or without conditions.
19. It is pertinent to note that the law is well settled that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to raise a new plea under the garb of filing rejoinder/replication or take a plea inconsistent to the pleas taken by him in the plaint, nor th
