Back
2014 Supreme(MP) 455
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Sujoy Paul, J.
Rasal Singh v. The Election Commission of India and others
Election Petition No.10 of 2014 (Gwalior); Decided on 4.9.2014.
Anil Mishra for petitioner;
D.K. Katare for respondents No.1 to 4;
S.K.Shrivastava for respondent No.5.
Headnote:(1) Representation of the People Act, 1951 -- Ss.100(1)(d)(i), 80 and 81 -- Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 -- Form 26-- Cls.10 and 11 -- election petition -- triable cause of action -- highest educational qualification disclosed -- non-discloser of all educational qualification -- it is not any triable cause of action.
Held : A conjoint reading of clauses 10 and 11 aforesaid makes it clear that the candidate was required to give details of “highest educational qualification”. Shri Anil Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that “oblique (/)” used in the said clauses must be read as “and” and not “or”. In other words, he submits that “oblique” means all qualification needs to be disclosed. I do not see any merit in this contention. If the intention of law makers would have been for disclosure of all the qualifications, they would have used the word “and” in place of “oblique (/)”. In my view, as per the text and context, the use of “oblique (/)” means “or”. The oblique indicates alternative so that a particular candidate may disclose his highest qualification acquired from a school or from a college or from University.
In the light of aforesaid, it is clear that the respondent No.5 was not required to give details of educational qualifications of primary school and college level etc. Page 43 of election petition, makes it clear that respondent No.5 has given the details of the highest educational qualification, i.e., B.A. and B.A.M.S. AIR 2001 Ori. 125 discussed.
(2) Representation of the People Act, 1951 -- Ss.33(A), 100(1)(d)(i), 80 and 81 -- Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 -- Form 26, columns No.5 and 6 -- criminal antecedents -- means of -- candidate either acquitted or discharged -- private complaint -- neither noticed nor any cognizance taken by Court -- candidate not required to disclose about acquittal or discharge -- non-discloser about acquittal or discharge --nomination cannot be rejected on this ground -- acceptance of such nomination is not improper.
The question is whether the respondent No.5 was required to disclose about the acquittal/discharge and whether because of non-disclosure, his nomination form should have been rejected.
Held : On the basis of newly inserted section 33(A) and the judgment of PUCL (supra), it is clear that the candidate is not required to disclose about the cases in which he is acquitted. 2006(2) JLJ 54, (2002)5 SCC 294 and (2003)4 SCC 399 discussed.
[Para 21
(3) Representation of the People Act, 1951 -- Ss.100(1)(d)(i) and (v) -- election petition -- triable issue and cause of action -- non-disclosure of assets and liabilities -- alleged suppression in affidavit regarding assets and liabilities -- does not provide any triable cause of action. (2003)4 SCC 399, 2010(2) MPLJ 149 and 2007(1) KLT 228 referred to. [Paras 22 to 26
(4) Representation of the People Act, 1951 -- Ss.81(3), 86 and 80 -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.7 R.11 -- election petition -- mandatory provision of section 81(3) -- not complied with -- preliminary objections in this regard -- objections allowed and election petition dismissed. AIR 1980 SC 303 followed. 2011(2) JLJ 234 and 2014(I) MPWN 14 relied on. [Paras 27 & 28
(5) Representation of the People Act, 1951 -- Ss.80 and 81 -- election petition -- parties to -- whether Election Commission wrongly impleaded or not -- question left open for deciding in appropriate case. [Para 28
¼1½ yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1951 && /kkjk 100¼1½¼?k½¼1½] 80 rFkk 81 && fuokZpu lapkyu fu;e] 1961 && iz:i 26 && [kaM 10 rFkk 11 && fuokZpu ;kfpdk && fopkj.k ;ksX; okngsrqd && mPpre ‘kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk izdV dh xbZ && leLr ‘kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk izdV u djrk && ;g dksbZ fopkj ;ksX; okngsrqd ugh gSA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % mi;qZDr [kaM 10 rFkk 11 dks ,d lkFk i<+us ij ;g Li”V gksrk gS fd vH;FkhZ dks ^^mPpre ‘kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk^^ dk fooj.k nsuk visf{kr FkkA Jh vfuy feJk] ;kph dh vksj ls fo}ku dkmUlsy] us rdZ fd;k fd mi;qZDr [kaMksa es iz;qDr ^^};FkZd ¼@½^^ ^^vkSj^^ ds :i es i<+k tkuk pkfg, vkSj ^^;k^^ ughA vU; ‘kCnksa es] mUgksaus fuosnu fd;k fd };FkZd ls vfHkizsRk leLr ;ksX;rk,¡ izdV djuk gksrh gSA bl rdZ es eq>s dksbZ xq.kkxq.k utj ugha vkrkA ;fn fof/k fuekZrkvksa dk vk’k; leLr ;ksX;rk,¡ izdV fd, tkus dk gksrk] os ‘kCn ^^};FkZd¼@½^^ ds LFkku ij ^^vkSj^^ iz;qDr djrsA esjs n`f”Vdks.k ls] ewy&ikB vkSj lanHkZ ds vuqlkj] };FkZd ¼@½ ds iz;ksx ls ^^;k^^ vfHkizsr gSA };FkZd vuqdYih bafxr djrk gS ftlls fd fof’k”V vH;FkhZ Ldwy ls ;k egkfo|ky; ls ;k fo’ofo|ky; ls izkIr viuh mPpre ;ksX;rk izdV dj ldrk gSA
mi;qZDr ds izdk’k es] ;g Li”V gS fd izR;FkhZ Ø-5 dks izkFkfed fo|ky; vkSj egkfo|ky; vkfn Lrj dh ‘kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rkvksa dk fooj.k nsuk visf{kr ugh FkkA fuokZpu ;kfpdk dk i`”B 43 ;g Li”V djrk gS fd izR;FkhZ Ø-5 us mPpre ‘kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk vFkkZr~ ch-,- vkSj ch-,-,e-,l- dk fooj.k fn;k gSA , vkb vkj 2001 mM+hlk 125 foosfprA
¼2½ yksd izfrfuf/kROk vf/kfu;e] 1951 && /kkjk 33¼d½] 100¼1½¼?k½¼1½] 80 rFkk 81 && fuokZpu lapkyu fu;e] 1961 && iz:i 26 && dk¡ye ua-5 rFkk 6 && iwoZo`ŸkZ vijk/kh && ls vfHkizsr && vH;FkhZ ;k rks nks”keqDr ;k mUeksfpr && O;fDrxr ifjokn && u rks lwpuk nh xbZ vkSj u gh U;k;ky; }kjk dksbZ laKku fy;k x;k && vH;FkhZ dk nks”keqDr ;k mUeksfpr gksuk izdV djuk visf{kr ugh && nks”keqDr ;k mUeksfpr gksus ds fo”k; es izdV u djuk && bl vk/kkj ij ukekadu [kkfjt ugh fd;k tk ldrk && ,slk ukekadu Lohdkj djrk vuqfpr ughA
iz’u ;g gS fd D;k vH;FkhZ dks nks”keqDr@mUeksfpr gksus ds fo”k; es izdV djuk visf{kr Fkk vkSj D;k tc izdV ugh fd;k] mldk ukekadu iz:i [kkfjt fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk\
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % uohu :i ls vra%LFkkfir /kkjk 33¼d½ vkSj ih-;w-lh-,y- ¼iwoksZDr½] ds fu.kZ; ds vk/kkj ij] ;g Li”V gS fd vH;FkhZ dks ,sls izdj.kksa ds fo”k; esa ftles og nks”keqDr gS izdV djuk visf{kr ugh gSA 2006¼2½ ts ,y ts 54] ¼2002½ 5 ,l lh lh 294 rFkk ¼2003½ 4 ,l lh lh 399 foosfprA ¼IkSjk 21
¼3½ yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1951 && /kkjk 100¼1½¼?k½¼1½ rFkk ¼5½ && fuokZpu ;kfpdk && fopkj;ksX; iz’u rFkk okngsrqd && laifŸk;k¡ vkSj nkf;Roksa dk izdV u djuk && ‘kiFk &i= esa laifŸk;k¡ vkSj nkf;Roksa dk fNik, tkus dk vfHkdFku && fopkj ;ksX; dksbZ okngsrqd iznku ugh djrkA ¼2003½4 ,l lh lh 399] 2010¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 149 rFkk 2007 ¼1½ ds ,y Vh 228 fufnZ”VA ¼IkSjk 22 ls 26
¼4½ yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1951 && /kkjk 81¼3½] 86 rFkk 80 && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk-7 fu-11 && fuokZpu ;kfpdk && /kkjk 81¼1½ ds vkKkid mica/k && dk vuqikyu && bl lac/k es izkjafHkd vkifŸk;k¡ && vkifŸk;k¡ eatwj dh xbZ rFkk fuokZpu ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh xbZA , vkb vkj 1980 ,l lh 303 vuqlfjrA 2011¼2½ ts ,y ts 234 rFkk 2014 ¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 14 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 27 ,oa 28
¼5½ yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1951 && /kkjk 80 rFkk 81 && fuokZpu ;kfpdk && ds i{kdkj && D;k fuokZpu vk;ksx dks xyr :i ls i{kdkj cuk;k gS ;k ugh && iz’u leqfpr ekeys es fofu’p; ds fy, [kqyk NksM+k x;kA ¼IkSjk 28
1. Parties were heard on IA No. 2952/2014, an application filed by respondent No.5 under section 81(3) read with section 86 of Representation of The People Act, 1951 (for brevity, the ‘RP Act’) for dismissing the petition, IA No.2953/2014, an application filed under Order 7 rule 11 (a) of CPC read with Order 6 rule 16 CPC for dismissing the election petition and IA No.3224/2014, another application filed under section 81(3) read with section 86 of the RP Act.
2. The petitioner, a member of Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP), submitted his nomination to contest the State Legislative Assembly Election of 2013. The nomination form was submitted for Constituency No.11, Lahar District Bhind. The respondent No.5 also submitted his nomination form with requisite affidavit for contesting the election. The nomination form and affidavit of respondent No.5 was scrutinized by the officers of the Election Commission. The petitioner submitted his objection against the nomination form and affidavit of respondent No.5. The petitioner stated in his objection that respondent No.5 has not furnished full and correct informations and, therefore, his nomination form needs to be rejected. It is submitted that the returning officer has committed an error in not rejecting the form of respondent No.5. The petitioner’s objection dated 9.11.2013 against the nomination form of respondent No.5 was rejected by returning officer by order dated 9.11.2013. In the assembly election, respondent No.5 was declared as elected.
3. Shri S.K.Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.5, who has filed these IAs, submits that there is no triable issue and cause of action in this matter and, therefore, election petition needs to be dismissed at this stage itself. He submits that the petitioner has challenged the election of respondent No.5 on the ground that the nomination paper of respondent No.5 is wrongly accepted. He submits that educational qualification, criminal antecedents/cases and assets/properties are shown as per the requirement of law. By taking this Court to various provisions of the RP Act, it is submitted that the nomination form and affidavit of respondent No.5 is in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same. The election petition can be entertained only on the grounds mentioned in section 100 of the RP Act. There is no such ground available in the present matter and, therefore, the election petition be dismissed at the threshold.
4. Shri Anil Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in improperly accepting the nomination of respondent No.5. By placing reliance on section 100(1)(d)(i) of the RP Act, it is contended that it is a case of “improper acceptance of the nomination form” of the respondent No.5. Shri Mishra further submits that the respondent No.5 has not furnished correct and complete information regarding his : (i) educational qualification, (ii) criminal antecedents/ cases, and (iii) properties and assets. Shri Mishra relied on paras 12 to 15 of the election petition to submit that the respondent No.5 has concealed the information, which was mandatorily required to be mentioned under clause 5(1)(i) of Form 26 of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (for brevity, the “Rules”). To elaborate, it is contended that the respondent No.5 has not disclosed the fact of pending criminal matters against him. It is submitted that there are two criminal cases pending against the respondent No.5 before Economic Offence Wing, Bhopal bearing Crimes No.13/2004 and 37/2004. In addition, it is contended that in the same form, the respondent No.5 has only disclosed about one Criminal Case No.544/2006 pending before JMFC, Lahar District Bhind, whereas there is another criminal case pending against him on the basis of a private complaint. It is urged that the said complaint has been filed by one Chhaviram for the offences punishable under secti
