SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(SC) 671

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. Bobde, CJI., A. S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.
TEJ BAHADUR – Appellant
Versus
SHRI NARENDRA MODI – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2100 of 2020
Decided on : 24-11-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Vishal Thakre, Rudra Pratap Yadav, Sanjeev Malhotra, Advocates
For the Respondent:Harish N. Salve, Satpal Jain, Rajat Nair, Kanu Agarwal, Aastha Mehta, Dheeraj Jain, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Where a person has no interest at all, or no sufficient interest to support a legal claim or action he will have no locus standi to sue. Entitlement to sue or locus standi is an integral part of cause of action.
(2) For a person to make claim that he was duly nominated, his nomination paper must comply with statutory requirements which govern filing of nomination papers and not otherwise.

Headnote:

(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 – Striking out pleadings and rejection of plaint – Where a person has no interest at all, or no sufficient interest to support a legal claim or action he will have no locus standi to sue – Entitlement to sue or locus standi is an integral part of cause of action – If on a meaningful reading of plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless, in sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should be nipped in bud at first hearing. (Para 25)

(B) Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 86(1) – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 – Election Petition – Dismissal – Rejection of nomination paper – Nominations have been found to be invalid by returning officer because they were not accompanied by a certificate to the effect that appellant has not been dismissed for corruption or disloyalty to State as required by Section 9(2)1 read with Section 33 (3) of Act – Appellant is not an elector registered in the Varanasi constituency – His locus thus depends entirely on question whether he is a candidate or can claim to be a duly nominated candidate – It is a condition for a valid nomination of a person who has been dismissed from service, that nomination paper must be accompanied by a certificate to effect that person seeking nomination has not been dismissed for corruption or disloyalty to State – Mandate of law that such a person shall not be deemed to be duly nominated must be given full effect and no person must be considered as entitled to claim that he has been duly nominated even though he does not comply with requirement of law – For a person to make claim that he was duly nominated, his nomination paper must comply with statutory requirements which govern filing of nomination papers and not otherwise – Averments in petition do not disclose that appellant has a cause of action which invest him with right to sue – Election Petition has been rightly nipped in bud – Civil Appeal dismissed. (Paras 7, 11, 16, 19, 21, 23, 25 and 27)

Facts of the case:

Instant appeal arises out of the order passed by the Allahabad High Court in Election Petition No. 17 of 2019 allowing respondent’s application under Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 86(1) of Representation of the People Act, 1951 and thereby dismissing Election Petition filed against him. The said application was filed in Election Petition questioning the election of the respondent Shri Narendra Modi to 17th Lok Sabha from 77th Parliamentary Constituency (Varanasi), held in April – May 2019. In the Election petition the appellant had prayed for declaring election of the respondent to be void on the ground that the appellant’s nomination was improperly rejected and further that nomination of the respondent was wrongly accepted for want of disclosure of certain facts. Further, that election was vitiated on account of misuse of official power by the Returning Officer and Election Observer.

Findings of Court:

Admittedly appellant’s nomination paper was not accompanied by a certificate to the effect that he had not been dismissed for corruption or disloyalty to the State. Any other construction of the scheme of the law in this regard would be startling as it would enable a person who was not an elector and not even entitled to be nominated as a candidate for an election to question the election of a returned candidate.

Result : Civil Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

S.A. Bobde, C.J.I

This appeal arises out of the order passed by the Allahabad High Court in Election Petition No. 17 of 2019 allowing the respondent's application under Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') read with Section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') and thereby dismissing the Election Petition filed against him. The said application was filed in the Election Petition questioning the election of the respondent Shri Narendra Modi to the 17th Lok Sabha from 77th Parliamentary Constituency (Varanasi), held in April - May 2019.

2. In the Election petition the appellant had prayed for declaring the election of the respondent to be void on the ground that the appellant's nomination was improperly rejected and further that the nomination of the respondent was wrongly accepted for want of disclosure of certain facts. Further, that the election was vitiated on account of misuse of official power by the Returning Officer and the Election Observer.

3. After due service, the respondent Shri Narendra Modi filed the application for dismissal of the petition contending that the petition does not disclose any cause of action and the appellant had no locus to file the petition in the absence of a certificate. The Allahabad High Court after hearing parties, by a detailed order dismissed the Election Petition on the ground that the appellant had no locus to challenge the election of the respondent from the Varanasi Parliamentary Constituency since the appellant was neither an elector for such constituency nor was he a candidate.

4. The instant appeal accordingly arises from an order passed by the Election Tribunal while considering and disposing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the Election Petition.

5. This matter must therefore necessarily be decided on the basis of the averments in the Election Petition and not on the basis of the reply of any of the respondents. (Vide: Kuldeep Singh Pathania vs. Bikram Singh Jaryal, (2017) 5 SCC 345).

6. For the Varanasi Constituency, the last date of filing the nominations was 29.04.2019. Scrutiny of the nomination forms was to be held on 30.4.2019. We are here mainly concerned with the question of the validity of the appellant's nomination since that has a direct bearing on the question whether he is candidate and has a right to question the election.

7. The appellant was an employee of the Border Security Force and as such held office under the Government of India. The appellant was dismissed from service on 19.4.2017. He filed two nominations, one on 24.4.2019 and another on 29.4.2019. The nominations have been found to be invalid by the returning officer because they were not accompanied by a certificate to the effect that the appellant has not been dismissed for corruption or disloyalty to the State as required by Section 9(2)1[9(2) .For the purpose of sub-section (1), a certificate issued by the Election Commission to the effect that a person having held office under the Government of India or under the Government of a State, has or has not been dismissed for corruption or for disloyalty to the State shall be conclusive proof of that fact;

Provided that no certificate to the effect that a person has been dismissed for corruption or for disloyalty to the State shall be issued unless an opportunity of being heard has been given to the said person.] read with Section 33(3) 2[S. 33(3) .Where the candidate is a person who, having held any office referred to in (section 9) has been dismissed and a period of five years has not elapsed since the dismissal, such person shall not be deemed to be duly nominated as a candidate unless his nomination paper is accompanied by a certificate issued in the prescribed manner by the Election Commission to the effect that he has not been dismissed for corruption or disloyalty to the State] of the Act.

8.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top