J U D G M E N T

REPORTABLE

Per DINESH MEHTA, J.

1. The matter has come before us pursuant to a reference that was made by learned Single Judge while hearing the election petition filed by the petitioner challenging the election of the respondent, who had been declared successful from Assembly Constituency-23, Karol Bagh for the general elections of Legislative Assembly of NCT of Delhi held in the year 2020.

2. It will not be out of place to reproduce relevant part of reasoning given by learned Single Judge, while making reference:

“22. In order to attract Section 123(4) of the RP Act is that there has to be publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person in relation to another candidate with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of any statement of fact which is false and which he either believes to be false or does not believe to be true in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate or in relation to the candidature or withdrawal of any candidate being a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election. The information given in Form 26, filed along with the nomination paper, does not come within any of the provisions of Section 123 of the RP Act which is very specific. Corrupt practice is defined in Section 123 of the RP Act. Corrupt practice does not include furnishing of false information in Form 26 along with the nomination paper. As stated in a catena of judgments, charge of corrupt practice is quasi-criminal in character and if substantiated, it leads not only to the setting aside of the election of the successful candidate but also disqualifies the candidate from contesting an election for a certain period. Unless the allegation does not come directly within the four corners of Section 123 of the RP Act, an election petition alleging corrupt practice under Section 123 of the RP Act cannot be entertained at all. It is again well settled that pleadings in election petition has to be specific and precise. Loose pleadings have no place in election law. This Court is of the opinion that the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court is based on purposive interpretation of corrupt practice and to set aside the election would go against the fundamentals and foundations of election jurisprudence.

23. In the absence of any amendment to Section 123 of the RP Act regarding the Affidavit which has now been sought to be furnished in pursuance to the amendments to the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, Section 123 of the RP Act, on the face of it, cannot be attracted. However, instead of holding the Judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court to be per incuriam, more particularly, after the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Ajmera Shyam (supra), this Court is inclined to request Hon'ble the Chief Justice to constitute a Larger Bench for authoritative pronouncement on this aspect.”

3. Before delving into the question so referred, we deem it appropriate to narrate the facts in brief to the extent necessary. The petitioner instituted a petition (hereinafter referred to as “Election Petition”) under Section 80 read with Sections 100(1)(b) & 100(1)(d) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “RP Act or the Act of 1951”) and sought a declaration that the election of the returned candidate i.e. respondent no.1 from the Assembly Constituency-23 be declared null and void alleging that he had furnished false and misrepresented facts in the affidavit and Form 26 submitted alongwith the nomination paper.

4. It has been pleaded in the petition that respondent no.1 has furnished false information and concealed the material facts regarding his educational qualification with a view to deceive not only the Returning Officer (respondent no.13) but also to induce/influence the electorate of the concerned Assembly Constituency.

5. It is to be noted that in paragraph no.12 of the election pe