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

2023 Supreme(SC) 563

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay S. Oka, Rajesh Bindal, JJ.
Senthilbalaji V. – Appellant
versus
A.P. Geetha & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3895-3896 OF 2023 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 7219-7220 of 2018)
Decided On : 19-05-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, Advocate, Ms. Sonakshi Malhan, Advocate, Mr. Sajal Jain, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Advocate, Mr. A. Lakshminarayanan, Advocate, Mr. Raghu, Advocate, Mr. K.kathiresan, Advocate, Mr. Devamshu Behl, Advocate, Mr. Scv Vimal Pani, Advocate, Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Dipesh Sinha, Advocate, Ms. Pallavi Barua, Advocate, Ms. Sakshi Upadhyaya, Advocate, Ms. Aparna Singh, Advocate, Mrs. Deepa. S, Advocate, Mr. Sheikh F Kalia, Advocate, Ms. Divya Singh, Advocate, Mr. D.Kumanan, Advocate

Allegations of corrupt practice in an election petition must be supported by specific material facts and full particulars as required by Section 83 of the RP Act of 1951. Failure to plead such material facts results in a lack of cause of action for corrupt practices.

Headnote:Corrupt Practice - Election Petition - Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act of 1951) - The court analyzed the requirements under Section 83 of the RP Act of 1951 for incorporating material facts and full particulars of corrupt practices in an election petition. It held that the petitioner failed to plead material facts constituting corrupt practice as required by law. The court emphasized that allegations of corrupt practice must be specific and precise, and failure to plead material facts would result in the rejection of the petition at the threshold. The court referred to previous decisions that established this principle and concluded that the election petition did not disclose a cause of action for corrupt practices. Therefore, it allowed the applications filed by the appellant for rejection of the petition and dismissed the election petition.

Fact of the Case:

The first respondent filed an Election Petition challenging the validity of an election under Section 81 of the RP Act of 1951. The appellant, who was declared elected, challenged certain paragraphs in the Election Petition on grounds that they lacked material facts and full particulars regarding alleged corrupt practices.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Election Petition failed to comply with Section 83's requirement to include material facts and full particulars of corrupt practices. It held that vague and general allegations without specific details do not constitute a cause of action for corrupt practices.

Issues:

Whether the Election Petition contained sufficient material facts and full particulars regarding alleged corrupt practices.

Ratio Decidendi:

Allegations of corrupt practice must be supported by specific material facts and full particulars as required by Section 83 of RP Act 1951. Failure to plead such material facts results in a lack of cause of action for corrupt practices.

Final Decision:

The court allowed applications filed by appellant for rejection/deletion of irrelevant paragraphs in Election Petition, as it did not disclose a cause of action for corrupt practices. The Election Petition was dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Abhay S. Oka, J. -

FACTUAL ASPECTS

1. These appeals arise out of an Election Petition filed by the first respondent under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, 'the RP Act of 1951'). The Election Petition was filed by the first respondent in the Madras High Court questioning the validity of the election of 134 -Aravakurichi Assembly Constituency (for short, 'the said Constituency'). Polling was held on 19th November 2016 and the result was declared on 22nd November 2016. The present appellant is the 5th respondent in the Election Petition filed by the first respondent. The present appellant was declared as elected. He was polled 88,068 votes. The 6th respondent in the Election Petition (the 6th respondent in this appeal) was polled 64,407 votes. Only 82 voters voted for the first respondent (Election Petitioner).

2. The first ground of challenge in the Election Petition is the improper acceptance of nomination papers of the appellant and the 6th respondent. The second ground of challenge is that the election is void as the appellant has indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation is that the appellant's agent and some other persons with the consent of the appellant have indulged in corrupt practices.

3. An application was made by the present appellant inter alia pointing out that no cause of action has been set out in the Election Petition in support of the ground of corrupt practice. It was submitted by the appellant that the Election Petition filed by the first respondent does not disclose any material particulars and material facts about the allegation of corrupt practice. It was contended that the allegations made in paragraphs 3 to 9 are vague and therefore, the said paragraphs deserve to be struck out by exercising the power under Rule 16 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC'). The second prayer was for the rejection of the Election Petition on the ground that the same does not disclose the cause of action. A similar application was also filed by the 6th respondent. By the impugned judgment, the learned Judge of the Madras High Court rejected the applications. While doing so, he observed that the first respondent had forwarded copies of a compact disc, photographs, etc. to the Returning Officer (5th respondent). The learned Judge directed the first respondent to file all relevant documents such as emails, photographs, video footage, etc. which were submitted to the Returning Officer within a period of 15 days from the order. The appellant has challenged the said judgment and order dated 23rd February 2018 by way of this Appeal.

SUBMISSIONS

4. Shri Ranjith Kumar, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has invited our attention to the requirement of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 83 of the RP Act of 1951 of incorporating in an election petition a concise statement of material facts and full particulars of any corrupt practice which is allegedly committed by the returned candidate. He pointed out that clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 83 also requires the election petitioner to make full statement disclosing the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of commission of such practice. The learned senior counsel also pointed out that initially, the election to the said Constituency was to be held in May 2016. By order dated 14th May 2016, the Election Commission of India ('the Election Commission') postponed the said election. There was a further order passed on 27th May 2016 by the Election Commission holding that the election of the said Constituency cannot be allowed to proceed and ought to be rescinded so that fresh elections could be held. Accordingly, on 17th October 2016, the Election Commission rescheduled the election to the said Constituency and declared that the polling will be held on 19th November 2016. He pointed out that the first respondent filed


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