Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 570
PATNA HIGH COURT
MR. SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA, J
Mahachandra Prasad Singh – Appellant
Versus
Prof. Dr. Birendra Narayan Yadav – Respondent
ELECTION PETITION No.1 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, Mr. Awnish Kumar, Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Mr. Vikash Kumar Singh
For the Respondents:Mr. P.K. Verma, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Yashraj Bardhan
A valid election petition must set forth concise material facts and demonstrate how alleged non-compliance materially affects the election outcome, as mere technical deficiencies do not suffice for declaring an election void.
Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 81, 82, 83, and 100 - Election petition challenging the election of the respondent on grounds of improper acceptance of nomination paper due to non-compliance with mandatory affidavit provisions. The petitioner alleged deficiencies in the affidavit filed under Form-26 which resulted in the violation of the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court determined that the election petition lacked a valid cause of action as it failed to detail how violations materially affected the election outcome. The court further held that non-compliance with the provisions of the R.P. Act related to election petitions must be strict, and any defects must be of a substantial nature to warrant declaring an election void. (Paras 1-40).
(B) An election petition must contain clear and concise material facts. The core question was whether alleged deficiencies in the affidavit constituted a substantial defect that materially affected the outcome of the election, which was found not to be the case. (Paras 4, 20, 34)
Facts of the case:
The election petitioner challenged the election of the respondent based on alleged technical mistakes in the affidavit submitted with the nomination papers that purportedly rendered the election void as per Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the R.P. Act. The respondent won the election by a margin of 5,951 votes without any objections regarding his nomination at the scrutiny stage.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner failed to establish a cause of action as required under Section 83(1)(a) of the R.P. Act. There was no evidence that the alleged defects materially affected the outcome of the election. The petition was dismissed at the preliminary stage for lack of merit.
Issues: The main issues were whether the alleged deficiencies in the affidavit warranted the dismissal of the election and whether the petition disclosed a valid cause of action under the R.P. Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted the necessity for precise pleadings in electoral disputes, emphasizing that mere technical errors in the affidavit do not suffice to challenge an election unless they materially affect the election result.
Result: The Election Petition was dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner filed election petition against the respondent. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments regarding the election process and compliance with the r.p. act. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. legal standards for rejection of election petitions highlighted. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. petitioner must prove that improper acceptance affected election results. (Para 19 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. importance of specific and material facts in election petitions. (Para 23 , 28 , 30) |
| 7. court's role in ensuring integrity of election petition process. (Para 31 , 35) |
| 8. election petition dismissed due to lack of cause of action. (Para 39 , 40) |
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA C.A.V. JUDGMENT Date : 09-05-2025 I.A. No.02 of 2024
The present interlocutory application has been preferred with a prayer for summary dismissal of the election petition filed by the petitioner as per the mandate stipulated under Section 86 (1) of The Representation of the People Act , 1951 (hereinafter referred as ‘R.P. Act’) read with Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Code’), on the ground of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions contained under Sections 81 , 82 and 83 of the R.P. Act and on the ground of not disclosing any cause of action.
2. It appears from the record that the sole respondent was an official candidate of Janta Dal (U) Party who had filed his nomination paper before the Returning Officer to contest the election of Bihar Legislative Council from 03, Saran Graduate Constituency on 10.03.2023 and also filed an affidavit in Form-26 duly sworn by him before the Notary Public, Chapra on 06.03.2023 alongwith his nomination paper. The scrutiny of the nomination papers of the candidate contesting the said election was held on 14.03.2023. No objection was raised by any of the candidate with regard to any defect in the nomination papers of the sole respondent until declaration of result on 05.04.2023. The respondent was declared elected as a Member of Bihar Legislative Council (Graduate Seat) from 03, Saran Graduate Constituency for which election was held on 31.03.2023 by a margin of altogether 5,951 votes. It is stated that he had secured total 32,239 votes. However, election petitioner being a candidate of Bhartiya Janta Party got only 26,288 votes. The respondent was declared an elected and returned candidate.
3. The election petitioner has filed the present election petition with a prayer to set aside the election of the sole respondent by declaring his election as void for non- compliance of the provisions contained under Section 100 (1)(d) (iv) of the R.P. Act and under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. It is alleged by the election petitioner that the affidavit contained in Form-26 (appended to the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961) filed along with nomination paper by the sole respondent is not in accordance with the mandatory provisions pointing out that redundant sub-para not scored off, the details of holding number and circle number of urban property was given instead of survey number and instead of “NO” at relevant column “ZERO” was written.
4. The sole respondent filed the written statement denying the allegation made by the election petitioner in the petition. It is stated that the election petition has been filed with a purpose and motive of vexing and harassing the sole respondent by absolutely false, untenable, flimsy and vexatious allegations disclosing no cause of action and the same is not maintainable and fit to be dismissed at the preliminary stage under Section 86 of the R.P. Act because of non-compliance of provision contained under Sections 81 , 82 and 83 of the R.P. Act. It is stated that there is no allegation of non-disclosure of any criminal case or any property, rather the allegation is only about manner in filling para 5, 6 and 7 of the affidavit in Form- 26 which apparently is a misnomer, highly technical and completely flimsy so as to disclose any cause o
