Election Petition Must Be Filed By A Candidate or Elector; Lack of Locus Standi Is Fatal: Punjab & Haryana High Court - 2025-10-01

Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Plea Against Hisar MP, Cites Petitioner's Lack of Standing

Chandigarh – The Punjab and Haryana High Court has summarily dismissed an election petition challenging the victory of Jai Parkash from the Hisar Parliamentary Constituency, ruling that the petitioner lacked the fundamental legal standing—or locus standi —to bring the challenge. Justice Anoop Chitkara held that a petition that fails to establish the petitioner as either a candidate or an elector in the concerned election must be rejected at the outset for not disclosing a valid cause of action.

---

Background of the Case

The election petition was filed by Manpreet Sirswa, who identified himself as a cabinet minister in the Haryana Government and claimed to have contested the 2024 General Elections from the 04-Hisar Parliamentary Constituency as a candidate for the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP).

The petition sought to set aside the election of Jai Parkash of the Indian National Congress, whose victory was declared on June 4, 2024. Sirswa alleged corrupt practices by the winning candidate and requested a fresh election, along with the disqualification of Parkash for six years under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA).

Petitioner's Contradictory Claims

The court's decision hinged on a glaring contradiction within the petitioner's own pleadings. While Sirswa claimed in the opening paragraphs to be the BJP candidate, a table in paragraph 8 of the petition, which detailed the election results, listed "Ranjit Singh" as the BJP candidate. The petitioner, Manpreet Sirswa, was not mentioned anywhere in the official list of candidates.

Justice Chitkara observed, "Perusal of the above clearly indicates that the petitioner’s name does not appear in the candidate list... Thus, the contention in the opening paragraphs contradicts the petitioner's pleadings."

Legal Principles: Locus Standi is Non-Negotiable

The court's reasoning was firmly rooted in Section 81 of the RPA, which strictly defines who can challenge an election. The provision mandates that an election petition can only be presented by:

1. A candidate at such election; or

2. An elector , defined as a person entitled to vote in that constituency.

The judgment noted that the petitioner failed on both counts. Not only was he not a candidate, but he also provided no evidence, such as a voter card or other particulars, to prove he was a registered voter in the Hisar constituency.

This failure to establish standing was deemed a fatal defect. The court emphasized that under Section 86(1) of the RPA, it is mandatory for the High Court to dismiss any election petition that does not comply with the provisions of Section 81.

Application of CPC and Precedents

Invoking its powers under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, the court applied Order VII Rule 11, which allows for the rejection of a plaint if it "does not disclose a cause of action." The court reasoned that the failure to plead a material fact—such as being a qualified candidate or elector—results in an incomplete cause of action.

Justice Chitkara cited several Supreme Court precedents, including the landmark case of Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi , to reinforce the principle that an election petition can be summarily dismissed at the threshold if it is defective. The judgment reiterated that the purpose of such powers is to prevent "meaningless litigation, which is otherwise bound to prove abortive" from consuming judicial time and burdening the elected representative.

"The sword of Damocles need not be kept hanging over his head unnecessarily without point or purpose," the court quoted from the Azhar Hussain judgment, highlighting the need to protect elected officials from frivolous legal challenges.

Final Decision and Implications

Concluding that the petition was fundamentally flawed, the court rejected it without proceeding to trial. Justice Chitkara stated, "A reading of the election petition indicates that it does not align with the Representation of People Act of 1951, that the petitioner has neither locus nor cause of action, and consequently, the petition is rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure."

The decision serves as a stern reminder of the strict procedural requirements governing election law. It underscores that before the merits of any allegation, such as corrupt practice, can be considered, a petitioner must first cross the fundamental threshold of proving their legal right to bring the challenge.