The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of precise and clear pleadings, including material facts and full particulars, in election petitions involving allegations of corrupt practices, as mandated by the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

The petitioner contested the General Election to the House of the people (Lok Sabha) held on 22-11-1989 from Kozhikode Parliamentary constituency as a candidate of "Jena Seva" party. The respondent was declared elected from the said Parliamentary constituency by a margin of 28950 votes. The petitioner alleges that the respondent committed serious corrupt practices and, therefore, his election is to be declared void. In the petition the petitioner alleges four types of corrupt practices committed by the respondent. The respondent filed preliminary objections denying the allegations in the petition. The respondent contends that the allegations in the petition are vague and they are frivolous and vexatious. It is also contended that the petitioner has not complied with the mandate of Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The respondent prays that the allegations in the petition are liable to be struck out under Order VI Rule 16, C.P.C.

2. It is repeatedly held by the Supreme Court in various decisions that an election petition, where allegations of corrupt practices are imputed must be regarded as a proceeding of quasi-criminal nature wherein strict proof is necessary and the pleadings of the election petitioner in his petition should be absolutely precise and clear, containing all necessary details and particulars as required by law. The allegations in the election petition should not be vague, general in character or lack material particulars. Section 83 of the Act specifically gives guidelines as to the mode in which the pleadings are to be drafted in an election petition. Section 83 requires the petitioner to give a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies. It is also mentioned in Section 83 that the petitioner shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practices and the date and place of the commission of each such corrupt practice. From section 83 of the Act it is clear that all preliminary facts which must be proved to establish the existence of a cause of action shall be stated in the petition. In the context of a charge of corrupt practice material facts would mean all the basic facts constituting the ingredients of the particular corrupt practice alleged, which the petitioner is bound to substantiate before he can succeed on that charge. Whether in an election petition, a particular fact is material or not and as such required to be pleaded, is a question which depends on the circumstances of the case. In Udhav Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindia (1976) 2 SCR 246 : (AIR 1976 SC 744) it has been held (at p. 752 of AIR) :

"In short, all those facts which are essential to clothe the petitioner with a complete cause of action, are "material facts" which must be pleaded, and failure to plead even a single material fact amounts to disobedience of the mandate of Sec. 83(1)(a)".

The Supreme Court has consistently taken the view that an election petition can be and must be dismissed under the provisions of Civil P.C. if the mandatory requirements enjoined by Section 83 to incorporate the material facts and particulars relating to alleged corrupt practice are not complied with. By virtue of Section 87 of the Act the provisions of the C.P.C. are made applicable, for the trial of an election petition. Under Order VI Rule 16 the Court is empowered at any stage of the proceedings to strike out any pleading which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or which, may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the petition or suit or which otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court. Order VII Rule 11(a) mandates that a plaint shall be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action. Therefore, it is clear that an election petition is to be summarily rejected where it fail