1. Election Petition challenging election result on grounds of non-disclosure of assets and corrupt practices — Application for rejection of petition under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 780
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Kimneo Haokip Hangshing – Appellant
Versus
Kenn Raikhan and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10549 of 2024 (Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20580 of 2023)
Decided On : 13-09-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. D N Goburdhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR Mrs. Rajani K Prasad, Adv. Mrs. Sunita Rani Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ahanthem Henry, Adv. Mr. Ahanthem Rohen Singh, Adv. Mr. Mohan Singh, Adv. Mr. Aniket Rajput, Adv. Ms. Khoisnam Nirmala Devi, Adv. Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. D N Goburdhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR Mrs. Rajani K Prasad, Adv. Mrs. Sunita Rani Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ahanthem Henry, Adv. Mr. Ahanthem Rohen Singh, Adv. Mr. Mohan Singh, Adv. Mr. Aniket Rajput, Adv. Ms. Khoisnam Nirmala Devi, Adv. Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Rejection of plaint – Election Petition should not be rejected at the very threshold where there is substantial compliance of provisions.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11 – Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Sections 83 and 86 – Rejection of plaint – Election petition – Allegation of corrupt practices in election – Election Petition should not be rejected at the very threshold where there is substantial compliance of provisions – What is mandatory is that there should be substantial compliance – If substantial compliance in terms of furnishing all that is required under law has been given, petition cannot be summarily dismissed – No reason to interfere with finding of High Court that Election Petition discloses cause of action and that there is substantial compliance of requirements provided under provisions of RPA and petition cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. (Paras 7, 10, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
High Court vide impugned order held that whether appellant had any income or not and whether he had given a wrong declaration at the time of his nomination needs to be looked into in trial for which evidence has to be led by parties and examined by Court. Petition cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 application. Consequently, application under Order VII Rule 11 filed by appellant was dismissed.
Findings of Court:
Cause of action has been disclosed by respondent. Whether appellant has concealed her investments and her income, and her nomination has been improperly accepted, is a triable issue.
Result : Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11 – Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Sections 83 and 86 – Rejection of plaint – Election petition – Allegation of corrupt practices in election – Election Petition should not be rejected at the very threshold where there is substantial compliance of provisions – What is mandatory is that there should be substantial compliance – If substantial compliance in terms of furnishing all that is required under law has been given, petition cannot be summarily dismissed – No reason to interfere with finding of High Court that Election Petition discloses cause of action and that there is substantial compliance of requirements provided under provisions of RPA and petition cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. (Paras 7, 10, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
High Court vide impugned order held that whether appellant had any income or not and whether he had given a wrong declaration at the time of his nomination needs to be looked into in trial for which evidence has to be led by parties and examined by Court. Petition cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 application. Consequently, application under Order VII Rule 11 filed by appellant was dismissed.
Findings of Court:
Cause of action has been disclosed by respondent. Whether appellant has concealed her investments and her income, and her nomination has been improperly accepted, is a triable issue.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petition should be rejected for failing to specify corrupt practices and non-compliance with Section 83, RPA — versus — allegations disclose a triable cause of action. (Para 4 )
3. Whether concealment of assets and income occurred is a triable issue; the petition discloses a cause of action and meets the requirement of substantial compliance. (Para 8 , 12 )
4. An Election Petition should not be rejected at the threshold if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 83, RPA. (Para 7 , 10 , 11 )
5. Appeal dismissed; High Court's order refusing to reject the Election Petition upheld. (Para 12 , 13 )
6. Can an Election Petition be dismissed at the threshold for non-compliance with Section 83, RPA?
No, an Election Petition should not be rejected at the threshold if there is substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 83, RPA, rather than strict construction. (Para 7 , 10 )
7. Is the filing of an affidavit under the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of the RPA mandatory for the maintainability of an Election Petition?
The requirement to file an affidavit under the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) is not mandatory. Substantial compliance is sufficient, and any defect in the affidavit is curable. (Para 10 , 11 )
8. Does an allegation of concealment of assets and income in nomination papers constitute a cause of action in an Election Petition?
Yes, whether a candidate concealed investments or income, leading to the improper acceptance of nomination papers, is a triable issue that discloses a cause of action. (Para 8 )
JUDGMENT :
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant before this Court is a Member of Legislative Assembly (hereinafter “MLA”) and was elected from the 46-Saikul Assembly Constituency in the 12th General Elections to the Manipur Legislative Assembly, which were held in 2022.
The respondent, who was also a contestant from the same seat, filed an Election Petition before the High Court of Manipur challenging the result of the election on the grounds that the appellant has not disclosed her assets in her nomination papers and that she had indulged in “corrupt practices” in the election. The appellant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) read with Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (“RPA”) for rejection of the petition, which was dismissed. The application dismissed by the High Court on 05.07.2023 is presently under challenge before this Court.
3. The respondent in his Election Petition inter-alia raised the following grounds in challenge to the election of the appellant:
“(1) Because the [appellant] has been declared as the returned/successful candidate by improperly accepting the nomination paper despite the concealment of the asset and investment of about Rs. 2 crore for land development in the said property of land and construction inside the agricultural land mentioned in her Form 26 affidavit....
(2) Because the [appellant] had concealed her total income for Financial Year 2021-22 and shown as Rs. 0 even though she was serving as Committee Officer at Secretariat of Manipur Legislative Assembly till 31.12.2021.”
4. Before the High Court, the present appellant then moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 for rejection of the petition on the grounds that it does not disclose any cause of action as it does not specify any corrupt practices alleged to have been committed by the appellant, nor is there any averment regarding concealment of her income/assets. Therefore, the Election Petition does not comply with the requirements of Section 83 of RPA and ought to be dismissed at the threshold.
5. The High Court vide the impugned order held that whether the appellant had any income or not and whether he had given a wrong declaration at the time of his nomination needs to be looked into in trial for which evidence has to be led by the parties and examined by the Court. The petition cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 application. Consequently, the application under Order VII Rule 11 filed by the appellant was dismissed. Aggrieved, the appellant is now before us.
6. Section 83 of the RPA is reproduced below:
“(1) An election petition:
(a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies.
(b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice.
(c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings:
Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof.
(2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition.”
(Emphasis supplied)
A perusal of the section shows that an Election Petition should, inter alia, contain a concise statement of material facts and particulars of any corrupt practices which is alleged against the returned candidate, etc. Further, the Proviso to Section 83 (1) of the Act requires that the Election Petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in prescribed form to support the allegations of corrupt practices.
7. Over the years, Ele
