Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Sanjay Kumar, J.
Maibam Sarat Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Langpoklakpam Jayantakumar Singh & Ors. - Respondents
EL. PET. No. 11 of 2017 with MC (EP) No. 26 of 2021 with MC (EP) No. 1 of 2022
Decided On : 08-02-2022
Election Petition - Manipur State Elections - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 100 - The court considered the legality of the election of respondent No. 1 and the allegations of improper acceptance of nomination, false affidavit, and failure to maintain election expenses. The court analyzed the statutory provisions of the Act of 1951, the instructions of the Election Commission, and relevant case law to determine the impact of the candidate's actions on the election result. The court found that the failure to maintain a proper account of election expenses did not constitute a corrupt practice under Section 123(6) read with Section 77(3) of the Act of 1951, and therefore dismissed the election petition.
Fact of the Case:
The election petition challenged the election of respondent No. 1, alleging improper acceptance of nomination, false affidavit, and failure to maintain election expenses. The original petitioner died, and two voters sought to be substituted as petitioners to continue the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the failure to maintain a proper account of election expenses did not constitute a corrupt practice under the Act of 1951. The court dismissed the election petition and allowed the respondent's application for rejection and return of documents filed by the original petitioner.
Issues: The issues included the legality of the acceptance of nomination and the alleged false affidavit and failure to maintain election expenses. The court also addressed the admissibility of documents and the application to call an additional witness.
Ratio Decidendi: The failure to maintain a proper account of election expenses did not constitute a corrupt practice under the Act of 1951. The court also emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed procedure for allegations of corrupt practices.
Final Decision: The election petition was dismissed, and the applications were allowed or dismissed accordingly. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
1. Elections to the 11th Legislative Assembly of the State of Manipur were held on 04.03.2017. The election results were declared on 11.03.2017.
2. Langpoklakpam Jayantakumar Singh, respondent No. 1 in this election petition, the candidate of the National People's Party, was declared elected from 12-Keishamthong Assembly Constituency, with 10,000 votes out of the total 23,111 votes. Laisom Ibomcha Singh, the original petitioner in this election petition, sponsored by the Indian National Congress, secured the second position with 6,739 votes. Rajkumar Shivachandra Singh of the Bharatiya Janata Party, respondent No.2 herein, stood third with 5,003 votes. Respondents No. 3 to 7 were the other candidates in the election from this constituency but they secured far lesser votes.
3. This election petition was filed on 24.04.2017. The prayer of the original petitioner was to declare the election of respondent No. 1 from 12-Keishamthong Assembly Constituency as void and to declare him as the duly elected candidate from the said constituency.
2. The original petitioner in this election petition died on 23.01.2021. MC (EP) No. 12 of 2021 was filed by one Maibam Sarat Singh, a voter of 12-Keishamthong Assembly Constituency, under Section 112(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1951'), seeking to be substituted as a petitioner so as to continue the proceedings in this election petition. Similarly, MC (EP) No. 13 of 2021 was filed by Yendrembam Indira Devi, the widow of the original petitioner, praying to be substituted as a petitioner and to be allowed to continue the proceedings in the election petition. Both these applications were ordered on 19.03.2021. Maibam Sarat Singh and Yendrembam Indira Devi were accordingly substituted as petitioners No. 1 and 2 in this election petition in the place of the original petitioner.
3. In essence, three grounds were urged by the original petitioner in this election petition in support of his allegation that the election of respondent No. 1 was void in terms of Section 100 of the Act of 1951:
i) That the acceptance of respondent No.1's nomination was improper and such illegal acceptance of his nomination materially affected the result of the election. The basis for this ground was that respondent No. 1 had failed to open a separate bank account for his election expenses in accordance with the directions/ instructions of the Election Commission of India.
ii) That respondent No.1 had sworn to a false affidavit while filing his nomination, wherein he stated that he had no Government dues, except for a motor car advance, though he had pending Government dues, viz., land revenue dues for his landed property.
iii) That respondent No.1 failed to maintain a true and proper account of his election expenses from the date of nomination till the date of declaration of the election result, thereby violating the provisions of Section 77 of the Act of 1951, and such violation constituted a corrupt practice.
4. Respondent No. 1 filed his Written Statement along with Annexures on 07.08.2017, contesting the pleas put forth in the election petition on technical grounds as well as on merits. Thereupon, the original petitioner sought the leave of this Court and filed his Replication along with Annexures on 23.01.2018. In turn, respondent No. 1 filed a Surrejoinder thereto on 03.10.2018, after obtaining permission from this Court.
5. Three issues were framed in this election petition on 08.08.2019. These issues read as under:
'i) Whether the respondent No. 1 failed to open a separate Bank Account for the purpose of his election expenditure at least one day prior to the date of his nomination being filed on 13.02.2017 as per the mandatory instructions of the Election Commission of India as contained in its letter dated 15.10.2013 and if the answer is in the affirmative, whether the acceptance of his nomination paper by the Returning Officer has materially affected the result of the elect
The failure to maintain a proper account of election expenses did not constitute a corrupt practice under the Act of 1951.
Non-compliance with election expenditure accounting does not constitute corrupt practice unless it materially affects election results.
Election petitions must strictly adhere to statutory provisions as alleged corrupt practices must be substantiated with clear material facts, or they are subject to dismissal.
Election petitions under the Representation of Peoples Act must provide precise allegations of corrupt practices to disclose a valid cause of action; vague claims do not suffice.
The court ruled that allegations of exceeding election expenditure limits were not substantiated, emphasizing the election petitioner's burden to prove corrupt practices beyond reasonable doubt.
Defective affidavit (not Form 25) in corrupt practice election petition is curable defect; opportunity to rectify required before dismissal under O7 R11 CPC. Pleadings alleging bribery with candidate....
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
