Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
Vivek Rusia, J.
Kantilal Bhuriya – Appellant
Versus
Guman Singh Damor – Respondent
Election Petition No. 38 of 2019
Decided On : 03-02-2023
Election Petition - Violation of Election Commission Orders - Section 14 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 - Rule 56-D of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 - Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the R.P. Act of 1951
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an election petition challenging the election of the respondent solely on the ground of non-compliance with the orders issued by the Election Commission of India under Section 14 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 and Rule 56-D of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the orders issued by the Election Commission of India were not published in the Official Gazette, and therefore, the non-compliance of the orders cannot be a ground for declaring the election as void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the R.P. Act of 1951.
Issues: The issues framed for adjudication were whether the Election Commission orders had statutory force, whether the Returning Officer violated mandatory guidelines, and whether the respondent's actions materially affected the election result.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the orders issued by the Election Commission did not have statutory force as they were not published in the Official Gazette, and the petitioner failed to prove that the election result was materially affected by the non-compliance.
Final Decision: The election petition was dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT
Vivek Rusia, J. - The petitioner has filed the present election petition to declare the election of the respondent / returned candidate as void.
2. The facts of the case as pleaded in the Election Petition are as under :
1. The President of India by notifications issued under sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the R.P. Act of 1951' for short) published in Official Gazettes dated 2.4.2019, 10.4.2019, 16.4.2019 and 22.4.2019 vide Annexure P/1 to P/4 for conducting the election of the Lok Sabha Constituencies in the State of M.P. to elect the members to the House of the People (Lok Sabha). The election was to be held in four phases in the State of M.P. Accordingly, the Election Commission of India issued Press Note for the announcement of the schedule for General Elections, 2019 for the Lok Sabha on 10.3.2019 and according to which, the schedule of election in respect of different Parliamentary Constituencies in the State of M.P. was also issued vide Annexure P/5. The election program in respect of Parliamentary Constituency No.24 Ratlam was as under :
29.4.2019 Last date for filing of nomination.
30.4.2019 Scrutiny of nomination.
2.5.2019 Last date for withdrawing of candidature.
19.5.2019 Date of Polling.
23.5.2019 Counting of votes.
27.5.201 Date before which the election shall be completed.
2. Under the aforesaid election program the petitioner submitted his Nomination papers from the Indian National Congress to contest the election from Parliamentary Constituency No.24 Ratlam and likewise the respondent also submitted his Nomination paper as the candidate of the Bhartiya Janata Party. As per schedule, the election was held on 19.5.2019. Thereafter, the result of the said Parliamentary Constituency was declared on 23.5.2019 vide Annexure P/6. The final result was issued by the Election Commission of India in Form 20 vide Annexure P/9. The present petitioner secured 605467 votes and the respondent secured 694243 votes, thus, the respondent won the election by the margin of 88776 votes accordingly, and the result was notified by the Election Commission of India.
3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid the petitioner has filed the present election petition challenging the election of the respondent solely on the ground enumerated under Section 100 (1)(d)(iv) of the R.P. Act of 1951.
4. According to the petitioner, voting in all the Parliamentary Constituencies in the entire country was held by Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) under Rule 49A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The apex Court in Civil Appeal No.9093/2013 (Dr. Subramanian Swamy V/s. Election Commission of India) has directed the Election Commission of India to introduce Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) together with the existing system of EVM. Thereafter, Rule 56-D was introduced w.e.f. 14.8.2013 for the introduction of the system of VVPAT allowing any candidate or his agent to apply in writing to the Returning Officer to recount the printed paper slips in the drop box of the printer in respect of any polling station or polling stations.
5. It is further submitted that the Election Commission of India issued instruction/order dated 13.10.2017 vide Annexure P/11 for verification of VVPAT paper slips - pilot testing under which the verification of VVPAT paper slips was to be done randomly selected one polling station per Assembly Constituency on a pilot basis mandatory. It is further submitted that the Apex Court in the case of N. Chandrababu Naidu V/s. Union of India reported in (2019) 15 SCC 377, directed for the increase in number from one polling station per Assembly Constituency to five polling stations per Assembly Constitution for verification of VVPAT paper slips. After the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, the Election Commission of India issued an instruction/order dated 21.5.2019 for mandatory counting and matching the result of VVPATs & EVM from five randomly selected polling stat
Election petitions must provide specific allegations of procedural violations to maintain cause of action; vague claims without factual substantiation are insufficient.
The election petition must contain concise statements of material facts and full particulars of any corrupt practice alleged, and failure to state material facts may lead to dismissal of the petition....
An election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts to demonstrate grounds under the Representation of People Act; failure to do so results in dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 of....
Election petitions must include precise material facts to establish a cause of action; failure to do so warrants dismissal per statutory requirements.
An election petition must contain concise material facts and particulars as per the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951; failure to do so results in dismissal.
Election petitions must contain concise statements of material facts; omission of a single material fact leads to dismissal for lack of cause of action.
Election petitions deficient in material facts, containing false averments, or failing to demonstrate material effect on election result or corrupt practice with required affidavit are summarily dism....
Important Point :Election petitions must contain concise statements of material facts and particulars of corrupt practices; failure to comply results in dismissal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
