Hon’ble Shri Kant Tripathi, J.—Heard Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Rajendra1 Kumar Pandey for the petitioner and Mr. Keshari Nath Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K.R. Singh for the Objector respondent.

2. The election petitioner Mr. V.M. Singh has filed the instant election petition to challenge the election of the respondent Mr. Feroze Varun Gandhi (the returned candidate) as a Member of the House of the People from 26- Pilibhit Constituency.

3. It is not in dispute that the respondent Mr. Feroze Varun Gandhi is the returned candidate belonging to Bhartiya Janata Party and the petitioner Mr. V.M. Singh is the nearest defeated candidate belonging to the Indian National Congress. The notification for the election was issued on 2.3.2009. The respondent filed his nomination on 22.4.2009. The date of poll was 13.5.2009. The respondent’s election has been challenged with the allegations that he made speeches during the election campaign in different meetings and appealed for vote in the name of religion by creating animosity and hatred between Hindu and Muslim community. Speeches so made by the respondent can be divided into two categories. The first category of speeches dated 22.2.2009, 6.3.2009, 7.3.2009 and 8.3.2009 relate to the pre-nomination period. Post-nomination speeches made by the respondent have been referred to in para 30 of the election petition. In para 29, 30 and 38 of the election petition, it has been pleaded that hatred speeches made prior to the nomination were integral part of the general election and were telecast repeatedly by T.V. Channels from 17.3.2009 till the finalisation of the election on 16.5.2009.

4. The second ground for challenging the respondent’s election petition is that his nomination was improperly accepted by the returning officer. It is alleged that the respondent’s affidavit in form 26 and his affidavit regarding his assets were not signed nor sworn in by him before the Notary Public on 22.4.2009 at 12.10 p.m. and 12.20 p.m. at Pilibhit, because at that time, he had been addressing a public meeting in district Bareilly. The relevant facts relating to the affidavits have been referred to in paras 6K and 41 to 51 of the election petition and copies thereof have been filed as Schedule 20 to the election petition.

5. The respondent has moved three interlocutory applications, challenging the maintainability of the election petition. The first interlocutory application has been moved under Section 86 (1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) mainly on the ground that he has not been furnished the copies of the documents referred to in paragraphs 19, 21, 23, 40 and 45 of the election petition. The said documents contain material facts with regard to the allegations of corrupt practice, therefore, it was obligatory in view of Section 81(3) of the Act, on the part of the petitioner to supply true copies of the documents to the respondent. Since the petitioner has not supplied the documents, therefore, the election petition is liable to be dismissed under Section 86 (1) of the Act.

6. The second interlocutory application has been moved under Order VI Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) read with Section 86 (1) of the Act, mainly on the ground that the allegations made in paragraphs 6 to 40, 54 and 57 of the election petition do not contain material facts. The averments made in the election petition are frivolous and irrelevant in view of the reasons that the facts stated in the petition relate to the incidents/events prior to the filing of the nomination by the respondent, therefore, the allegations made in the election petition are neither relevant nor can be considered as material facts to constitute the corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 100 and 123 of the Act. Paragraphs 6K and 41 and 51 of the election petition do not contain material facts relati