Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 9668
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KIMNEO HAOKIP HANGSHING – Appellant
Versus
KENN RAIKHAN – Respondent
C.A. No.-010549-010549 - 2024
An Election Petition cannot be dismissed at the threshold if there is substantial compliance with statutory requirements and a disclosed cause of action.
Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Section 83 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Election Petition - Challenge to election on grounds of non-disclosure of assets and corrupt practices - High Court dismissed application for rejection of petition, ruling that substantial compliance with statutory requirements was present - Court emphasized that an Election Petition should not be dismissed at the threshold if there is a cause of action and substantial compliance with the law. (Paras 6, 8, 12)
(B) Election Petition - Requirements - An Election Petition must contain a concise statement of material facts and particulars of any corrupt practices alleged, supported by an affidavit - Substantial compliance is sufficient to avoid dismissal at the threshold. (Paras 7, 10)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, an elected MLA, faced an Election Petition challenging her election based on alleged non-disclosure of assets and corrupt practices. The High Court dismissed her application to reject the petition, stating that the allegations warranted a trial.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the Election Petition disclosed a cause of action and that there was substantial compliance with the requirements of the Representation of the People Act.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Election Petition disclosed a cause of action and whether the requirements of Section 83 of the RPA were met.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that substantial compliance with the statutory requirements is sufficient to allow the Election Petition to proceed, emphasizing that dismissal at the threshold is not warranted if a cause of action is present.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
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; and (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 yea
