Election petitions must provide concise statements of material facts; failure to do so results in rejection as they do not constitute a complete cause of action.

Headnote:(A) Representation of People Act, 1950 - Sections 81, 83, 100 - Rejection of election petition - Respondent's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection based on non-disclosure of cause of action - Petitioners failed to provide necessary particulars of alleged malpractice or fraud - Court outlined necessity for a concise statement of material facts (Paras 2, 3, 10, 12).

(B) Election Petition - Requirements - Statutory proceedings must include all material facts which form a complete cause of action - Absence of specific details fatal to petition (Paras 9, 11).

(C) Judicial Review - Issues not alleged with specificity cannot warrant judicial investigation - Vague claim of irregularities deemed inadequate (Paras 4, 11, 14).

Findings of Court:
The election petition lacked necessary particulars and failed to comply with statutory mandates, resulting in its rejection.

Issues: The court primarily addressed whether proper material facts were pled as required by the relevant statutes.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts must ensure that election petitions disclose necessary material facts to establish the right to relief; failure to comply leads to dismissal.

Result: The election petition was rejected for non-disclosure of material facts and absence of cause of action.

Table of Content
1. application under order vii rule 11 filed. (Para 1 , 2)
2. respondent's objection to specifics of allegations. (Para 3 , 4)
3. petitioners argue for proceeding with evidence. (Para 6 , 7)
4. court's careful analysis of submissions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. insufficiency of pleadings detailed. (Para 11 , 12)
6. explanation of rejection criteria under law. (Para 13 , 14)
7. petition dismissed for lack of material facts. (Para 15)

ORDER :

K.S.HEMALEKHA, J.

I.A.No.2/2024

I.A. No.2/2024 is filed by respondent No.2 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) CPC read with Section 87 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. Respondent No.2 returned candidate has filed the present application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 87 of the Act, seeking rejection of the election petition on the ground that the same does not disclose any cause of action and it is devoid of material facts as mandated under Sections 81, 83 and 100 of the Act.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the allegation of mass malpractice or impersonation is vague and unsubstantiated. The petitioners have failed to provide even basic particulars such as:

a) Number of votes allegedly improperly accepted;

b) Number of impersonators;

c) Identities of officials who facilitated such act;

d) The explanation of how the result was materially affected.

4. It is submitted that, in the absence of prima facie evidence or identification of fraudulent acts, the plaint cannot be judicially entertained. The petition lacks material facts required under Section 83 of the Act and hence, discloses no cause of action. Respondent No.2 has filed an application seeking rejection of the petition in limine and hence, the same deserves to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11. He submits that every election petition must contain the concise statement of material facts, which, if proved, would constitute a complete cause of action under Section 83(1) (a) of the Act. In the absence of such foundational pleadings, the Court has no jurisdiction to embark upon an enquiry or to permit a roving and fishing investigation. Reliance is placed on the following decisions:

i. Kanimozhi Karunanidhi Vs. A. Santhana Kumar and others , 2023 SCC Online SC 573 (Kanimozhi Karunanidhi) to contend that the petition bereft of material facts is liable to be dismissed at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

ii. Kalyan Singh Chouhan Vs. C.P. Joshi , (2011) 11 SCC 786 (Kalyan Singh), reiterating that ‘a fishing or roving inquiry, in an election petition is impermissible’ when allegations are made.

iii. Karim Uddin Barbhuiya Vs. Aminul Haque Laskar and others , 2024 SCC Online SC 509 (Karim Uddin Barbhuiya) to contend that when no material facts are pleaded to constitute a cause of action, the petition must fail.

iv. Markio Tado Vs. Takam Sorang and others, (2012) 3 SCC 236 (Markio Tado) to contend that the vague assertion cannot sustain a recount or election challenge.

v. Mahender Pratap Vs. Krishan Pal and others , (2003) 1 SCC 390 (Mahender Pratap) emphasizing that any illegality or irregularity must be pleaded with specificity and supported by statutory satisfactory evidence.

vi. P.H. Pujar Vs. Kanthi Rajashekhar Kidiyappa and others , (2002) 3 SCC 742 (P.H. Pujar)

vii. Mohan Krishna Shetty and another Vs. Dinakar Keshav Shetty and others , 2011 SCC Online Kar 4703 (Mohan Krishna Shetty) to submit that a small margin of votes by itself is not a ground to direct recounting or to invalidate an election.

viii. Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar Vs. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar , (2009) 9 SCC 310 (Anil Vasudev) to contend that an election petition can be summarily dismissed for non-disclosure of cause of action.

5. On the general principles regarding governing rejection of claims, reliance is placed on the following decisions:

i. Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy Vs. Syed Jalal , (2017) 13 SCC 174 (Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy

ii. T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal and another , (1977) 4 SCC