Back
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
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.
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:
(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:
(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, Election Pe
Rejection of plaint – Election Petition should not be rejected at the very threshold where there is substantial compliance of provisions.
Election Petition – Requirement to file affidavit under proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of Representation of People Act, 1951 is not mandatory – It is sufficient if there is substantial compliance.
An election petition must disclose material facts to establish a cause of action; vague allegations are insufficient for dismissal, and substantial compliance with procedural rules is mandated.
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 materi....
Election petitions must comply with statutory requirements, including proper affidavits and clear allegations, or they risk dismissal for lack of cause of action.
Election petitions must include precise material facts to establish a cause of action; failure to do so warrants dismissal per statutory requirements.
Failure to comply with statutory requirements regarding material facts and submission of integral documents renders an election petition dismissible at the threshold.
Election petitions must provide a concise statement of material facts; omissions lead to dismissal under statutory provisions when they do not substantiate a cause of action.
The failure to provide a concise statement of material facts in an election petition renders it liable for summary dismissal under Sections 83 and 100 of the Representation of People Act.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
