The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for precise and unambiguous pleadings in election petitions, specifically in alleging corrupt practices. The judgment emphasized the need to state material facts and fullest possible particulars of the alleged corrupt practice, and failure to do so can lead to the dismissal of the petition for not disclosing any cause of action.

Petitioner and the respondent along with four others contested in the General Election to the Kerala Legislative Assembly from Thodupuzha Constituency, styled as 'No.82, Thodupuzha'. The poll took place on 12-6-1991. Petitioner contested as an independent candidate, supported by Samajwadi Janatha Party. Respondent was the candidate of Congress (I), a constituent of the United Democratic Front. Among the other candidates, one belonged to the Kerala Congress (J), one to Bharathiya Janatha Party and the other two were independents.

2. Election to the Kerala Legislative Assembly was notified as per notification published in Kerala Gazette Extraordinary, dated 19-4-1991. The date for polling was fixed as 23-5-1991. On account of the assassination of Sri. Rajiv Gandhi, the former Prime Minister, on 21-5-1991, polling was postponed to 12-6-1991. Candidates were permitted by the Election Commission to carry on propaganda work till the evening of 10-6-1991.

3. The 'ashes' of Sri. Rajiv Gandhi was collected in several urns and those urns were sent to different parts of the country to be immersed in various holy rivers. One such urn was brought to Kerala. It was taken to all the Assembly Constituencies in Kerala by the leaders of United Democratic Front, led by Congress (I). According to the petitioner, it was an attempt of the U.D.P. to arouse passion among the general public in its favour, in order to have electoral gains. The ashes was finally immersed in Papanasini in Wynad on 30-5-1991. In the guise of celebrating the day on which the ashes of their leader was immersed in Papanasini, the United Democratic Front organised prayer meeting at the Autorickshaw stand, near the Thodupuzha Municipal Bus stand from 10a.m. to 4 p.m. on 30-5-1991. It was also announced that rice would be distributed free to all the poor people in the locality after the prayer meeting. It is averred by the petitioner that the prayer meeting and distribution of free rice to the poor people of the locality were clever devices invented by the respondent to give gifts and gratification so as to induce the people receiving the gifts or gratification of free rice to vote for him at the election from No.82, Thodupuzha Assembly Constituent-I'. The distribution of rice after the prayer meeting, according to the petitioner, constituted corrupt practice as contemplated by the Representation of the People Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". On this basis, he has filed this Election Petition invoking the provisions contained in S.80.80A, 81,82, 83, 84 and 100 read with S.177 of the Act to declare the election of the respondent from No.82, Thodupuzha Assembly Constituency as void.

4. Respondent entered appearance and raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition. The contention raised by the respondent is that the pleadings have to be struck out under Order VI Rule 16 C.P.C. as they are irrelevant, unnecessary and an abuse of the process of the Court. It is stated that the petition does not disclose any cause of action and has therefore to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the respondent, an analysis of the several paragraphs in the Election Petition would show that the petition does not disclose any cause of action of corrupt practice under S.123(1) of the Act.

5. It is trite law that an election petition can be dismissed summarily at the

threshold if it does not disclose any cause of action (vide AzharHussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1986 S.C. 1253). It is now well settled that in Election Petitions pleadings have to be precise, specific and unambiguous. If the election petition does not disclose a cause of action, it is liable to be rejected in limine. As per S.83 of the Act, an election petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which

the petitioner relies. It should set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, includin