1. Election candidate challenges the election of a returned candidate alleging corrupt practice through nondisclosure of assets in the mandatory nomination affidavit filed under the election law. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 823
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J.
Kalvakuntla Taraka Rama Rao (K.T.R.) - Petitioner
Versus
Kondam Karuna Mahender Reddy - Respondent
I.A. No.02 of 2024 In/And Election Petition Nos.27 & 28 of 2024
Decided On : 04-08-2026
Important Points
Election petitions must strictly plead concise material facts and full particulars of corrupt practices under Section 83 of the R.P. Act. Vague allegations and non-disclosure of insubstantial assets do not constitute a valid cause of action for invalidating a returned candidate's election.
Subject
Election Law - Election Petitions
Act Referred
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE: O.6 R.4, O.7 R.11
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT: 117, 170, S.100(1)(a)(d)(i), S.101, S.123, S.75(a)(5)(v), S.80, S.81, S.83, S.84, S.86
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT: 117, 170, S.100(1)(a)(d)(i), S.101, S.123, S.75(a)(5)(v), S.80, S.81, S.83, S.84, S.86
Headnote
(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 83, 100, and 123 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Election Petition - Requirement of concise statement of material facts and full particulars of corrupt practice - Failure to plead material facts is fatal to the petition - Vague allegations of "possibility" of undue influence do not constitute a valid cause of action - An election petition challenging the election of a returned candidate must contain all material facts constituting a complete cause of action (Paras 32, 35).
(B) Corrupt Practice - Non-disclosure of assets in nomination affidavit - Mere non-disclosure of certain information relating to assets by a returned candidate does not, by itself, warrant setting aside the election unless the concealment was of such magnitude and substantial nature that it could have influenced the election result - Distinction between non-disclosure of substantial issues versus insubstantial issues (Paras 32, 34).
(C) Improper acceptance of nomination - Lack of objection during the scrutiny of nominations precludes the petitioner from later challenging the validity of the nomination process on the same grounds (Paras 35, 42).
Facts of the case:
An election petition was filed seeking to declare the election of a returned candidate as null and void, alleging a corrupt practice of undue influence due to the suppression of material facts regarding the assets of the candidate's son in the nomination affidavit. It was contended that the non-disclosure of the son's assets, who had recently attained majority, influenced the electorate.
Findings of Court:
The election petition failed to provide a concise statement of material facts or full particulars of the alleged corrupt practice as required under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act. The allegations were based on the "possibility" of undue influence rather than definite facts. Furthermore, the candidate's son was found to have attained majority and possessed an independent source of livelihood, thus not qualifying as a dependent child.
Issues: Whether the election petition was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for non-disclosure of essential material facts and failure to specify the nature of the corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the mandatory requirements of Section 83 are strict; the absence of a complete bundle of material facts prevents the petition from disclosing a triable issue. Vague assertions and surmises cannot replace specific pleadings of corrupt practices. Since no objection was raised during the scrutiny of the nomination, and the non-disclosure was not of a substantial nature affecting the election result, the petition lacked a legally sustainable cause of action.
Result: Election Petition Nos. 27 and 28 of 2024 are hereby rejected.
(B) Corrupt Practice - Non-disclosure of assets in nomination affidavit - Mere non-disclosure of certain information relating to assets by a returned candidate does not, by itself, warrant setting aside the election unless the concealment was of such magnitude and substantial nature that it could have influenced the election result - Distinction between non-disclosure of substantial issues versus insubstantial issues (Paras 32, 34).
(C) Improper acceptance of nomination - Lack of objection during the scrutiny of nominations precludes the petitioner from later challenging the validity of the nomination process on the same grounds (Paras 35, 42).
Facts of the case:
An election petition was filed seeking to declare the election of a returned candidate as null and void, alleging a corrupt practice of undue influence due to the suppression of material facts regarding the assets of the candidate's son in the nomination affidavit. It was contended that the non-disclosure of the son's assets, who had recently attained majority, influenced the electorate.
Findings of Court:
The election petition failed to provide a concise statement of material facts or full particulars of the alleged corrupt practice as required under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act. The allegations were based on the "possibility" of undue influence rather than definite facts. Furthermore, the candidate's son was found to have attained majority and possessed an independent source of livelihood, thus not qualifying as a dependent child.
Issues: Whether the election petition was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for non-disclosure of essential material facts and failure to specify the nature of the corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the mandatory requirements of Section 83 are strict; the absence of a complete bundle of material facts prevents the petition from disclosing a triable issue. Vague assertions and surmises cannot replace specific pleadings of corrupt practices. Since no objection was raised during the scrutiny of the nomination, and the non-disclosure was not of a substantial nature affecting the election result, the petition lacked a legally sustainable cause of action.
Result: Election Petition Nos. 27 and 28 of 2024 are hereby rejected.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri G. Vidyasagar, Learned Senior Counsel representing Sri T.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel.
For the Respondents: Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Prabhakar, learned counsel, Sri Mohammed Omer Farooq, learned counsel.
For the Petitioner: Sri G. Vidyasagar, Learned Senior Counsel representing Sri T.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel.
For the Respondents: Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Prabhakar, learned counsel, Sri Mohammed Omer Farooq, learned counsel.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner asserts failure to disclose dependent's assets constitutes corrupt practice and undue influence; Respondent contends petitioner failed to plead material facts or specific corrupt practice clauses. (Para 7 , 8 , 21 , 26 , 27 )
3. The High Court observed that failure to plead specific material facts and particulars regarding the alleged corrupt practice renders an election petition unsustainable and liable for summary rejection. (Para 35 , 37 , 41 , 43 )
4. An election petition lacking essential material facts and precise particulars of alleged corrupt practice cannot survive a challenge under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. (Para 10 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 35 )
5. The applications for rejection of the election petitions were allowed, and the election petitions were dismissed due to the lack of a valid cause of action. (Para 44 , 45 )
6. What standard is required for pleading corrupt practice in an election petition?
An election petition alleging corrupt practice must strictly comply with Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act by providing concise material facts and full particulars, including names, dates, and places, to disclose a complete cause of action; failure to do so is fatal to the petition. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 35 )
7. Does the non-disclosure of assets in a nomination affidavit automatically constitute a corrupt practice?
Not every instance of non-disclosure is a corrupt practice. The defect must be of a substantial nature that materially affects the election result; mere technical or minor non-disclosures do not warrant invalidating an election unless they significantly influence the electoral process. (Para 34 , 38 , 40 )
8. Can an election petition be rejected if the petitioner did not raise objections during the nomination scrutiny process?
While not an absolute bar, the failure to raise an objection at the scrutiny stage undermines the petitioner's claim of improper acceptance, especially when the subsequently raised allegations lack independent factual foundation or manifest material facts to establish a triable issue. (Para 21 , 35 , 42 )
ORDER :
Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J.
Both these applications are filed to reject the election petitions No.27 and 28 of 2024 under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short “R.P. Act”) and dismiss the election petitions No.27 & 28 of 2024.
2. Heard Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri T.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent No.1, and Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Peri Prabhakar, learned counsel for the respondent/election petitioner, and Sri Mohammed Omer Farooq, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.21 in both the cases. Perused the record.
3. For convenience, this Court is inclined to discuss the facts stated in I.A. No.02 of 2024 in E.P. No.27 of 2024. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
Respondent No.1/Election petitioner has filed the present election petition praying for:
(a) To declare the election of the respondent No.1 (in the election petition) as a returned candidate from 29-Sircilla Assembly Constituency, Rajanna-Sircilla District in the Telangana Legislative Assembly, State of Telangana, in the General Elections held on 30.11.2023 and the declared result on 03.12.2023 as illegal, null and void and set aside the same; and
(b) For a further declaration that the election petitioner is entitled to be declared as duly elected from 29-Sircillar Constituency, Rajanna-Sircilla District, Telangana Legislative Assembly, State of Telangana, in the General Elections held on 30.11.2023 and the declared result on 03.12.2023.
4. The election petition has been filed under Sections 80 , 80 (A), 81, 83, 84, 100 (1)(b)(d), 101, 123(1) of the R.P. Act and the rules made thereunder. The rules to regulate the trial of election petitions under the R.P. Act. Section 100(1)(b) of the R.P. Act deals with the power of High Court to declare the election of a Returned candidate to be void, if in the opinion of the High Court, any corrupt practice has been committed by the Returned candidate or, his election agent or by any other person with the consent of the Returned candidate or the Returned candidate’s agent. “Corrupt Practice” has been defined under Section 123 of the R.P. Act.
5. The election petitioner has alleged that “there is a possibility” of undue influence on the Electorate on account of suppression of material facts in relation to the assets and the details in the affidavit filed by the petitioner/respondent No.1 in Form 26 and that the same is a “Corrupt Practice” under Section 123 of the R.P. Act. The election petitioner in the affidavit appended to the election petition at page No.27-A has sworn on oath that the statements made in paragraph No.III.1 to III.19 and para III sub-paras of the election petition constitute corrupt practice of false statement. The election petitioner has miserably failed to plead what is the corrupt practice alleged in the election petition and that there is no pleading in relation to any corrupt practice as defined in Section 123 of the R.P. Act.
6. The election petition is casually filed without there being any allegation of “corrupt practice” under section 123 of the R.P. Act and merely states at para III sub-para 15 at page 14 of the election petition that by quoting Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment there is every possibility of there being undue influence on the Electoral system.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent No.1 submits that the paragraphs mentioned in Form-25 filed in compliance of Rule 94(A) at page No.27-A of the election petition do not constitute material facts of alleged corrupt practice to give rise to a cause of action for corrupt practice with a triable issue. In fact, vide Form-25, the election petitioner states that the alleged corrupt practice is a false statement. The election petitioner has very vaguely and casually mentioned that there is an alleged corrupt practice under section
