Election Petition Pleadings on Corrupt Practice and Void Votes Survive Challenge to Be Struck Out

Gauhati High Court Dismisses Application Under Order VI Rule 16 CPC, Holds Pleadings Disclose Triable Issues

Guwahati: The Gauhati High Court, in a significant ruling concerning election disputes, has dismissed an application seeking to strike out pleadings in an election petition. The court held that the pleadings, alleging corrupt practices including booth capturing and the impact of void votes cast due to defective electoral rolls, disclosed sufficient material facts and particulars to constitute a cause of action and warrant a trial.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Kardak Ete on March 21, 2025, in an interlocutory application (IA(C)/182/2024) filed within the pending Election Petition No. 7(AP)/2024. The application was moved by the returned candidate, Tadar Mangku , who is the respondent in the election petition, against the election petitioner, Tai Nikio.

Background of the Dispute

Tai Nikio had filed an election petition challenging the election of Tadar Mangku from the 19 Nyapin (ST) Assembly Constituency. The primary grounds for challenge included:

1. Declaration of the election as void under Section 98(b) read with Section 100(1)(b) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (RP Act, 1951) due to corrupt practice by the returned candidate or his agents.
2. Declaration of the election as void under Section 98(c) read with Section 101(b) of the RP Act, 1951, claiming that but for the votes obtained by corrupt practice (specifically booth capturing), the petitioner would have secured a majority of valid votes.

The election petition's allegations included the presence of dead, non-existent, or bogus voters in the electoral rolls of specific polling stations (16-Pagba, 29-Kambang, 30-Peel, and 24-Rowa) and the commission of booth capturing in these stations by the returned candidate's supporters.

Arguments for Striking Out Pleadings

Mr. P. K. Tiwari, learned Senior counsel for the applicant ( Tadar Mangku ), argued that the pleadings related to defective electoral rolls were unconnected to the grounds for setting aside an election under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) or (iv) of the RP Act, 1951 (result materially affected by improper reception of void votes or non-compliance with law), particularly since there was no specific prayer seeking relief under these sections. He contended that defective electoral rolls, by themselves, are not a ground to invalidate an election, citing Supreme Court judgments like Syamdeo Prasad Singh and Inderjit Barua , which emphasize the finality of electoral rolls after nomination dates.

Furthermore, he submitted that the pleadings did not contain sufficient material facts showing how the returned candidate benefited from the alleged void votes or how they were connected to the allegations of corrupt practice like booth capturing. He asserted that the pleadings regarding corrupt practice and defective electoral rolls existed independently and were improperly linked by the petitioner. Therefore, he sought to strike out numerous paragraphs of the election petition under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, arguing they were unnecessary, frivolous, or vexatious.

Arguments Against Striking Out Pleadings

Mr. Rituraj Biswas, learned counsel for the opposite party (Tai Nikio), opposed the application, arguing that Order VI Rule 16 CPC should be applied sparingly and only when pleadings are truly baseless or abusive of the process. He contended that the application itself could be seen as a dilatory tactic.

He emphasized the distinction between "material facts" required under Section 83(1)(a) and "full particulars" required under Section 83(1)(b) for corrupt practices, citing Supreme Court judgments including Virender Nath Gautam and Harkirat Singh . He argued that while complete particulars for every instance might be lacking, the pleadings did contain essential "material facts" establishing a cause of action, particularly regarding the casting of void votes (by dead/bogus voters) and booth capturing. He clarified that the challenge wasn't merely to the defective electoral roll but to the casting and reception of void votes based on that roll, which could fall under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) or be linked to corrupt practice under Section 100(1)(b)/101(b). He relied on precedents like Sardar Harcharan Singh Brar , D. Ramachandran , Madiraju Venkata , and V.S. Achuthanandan , which stress that pleadings must be read as a whole and should not be struck out if they disclose some cause of action or triable issue, even if the case appears weak or particulars could be amplified later under Section 86(5) of the RP Act, 1951.

Court's Analysis and Decision

Justice Kardak Ete carefully examined the pleadings in the election petition, categorizing them into allegations concerning defective electoral rolls, booth capturing/corrupt practice, and non-disclosure of assets. The court acknowledged the complaints regarding dead and bogus voters in the electoral rolls of specific polling stations, noting that some complaints were made after the finalization of the electoral roll but before polling.

While recognizing the principle established in cases like Syamdeo Prasad Singh and Inderjit Barua that the finality of electoral rolls cannot generally be challenged in an election petition under Section 100(1)(d)(iii)/(iv), the court found that the petitioner's case extended beyond merely challenging the roll's preparation. Pleadings specifically mentioned the reception of void votes by the returned candidate stemming from these defective rolls (e.g., paragraph 11h, 11i) and the number of bogus voters found (paragraph 12xxvii), which the court viewed as potentially attracting the ground under Section 100(1)(d)(iii).

Crucially, the court adopted the approach that pleadings must be read comprehensively and not in isolation, referencing judgments like Madiraju Venkata and Ponnala Lakshmaiah . It reiterated the distinction between material facts and particulars, noting that while complete particulars might be lacking in some allegations, the pleadings did set forth material facts and details supporting those facts, which amplify the allegations and provide notice to the opposite party. The court emphasized, citing Virender Nath Gautam and Harkirat Singh , that matters of evidence required for proof at trial are not necessary to be pleaded as material facts or particulars.

Regarding the allegations of booth capturing and intimidation, the court found that the pleadings (e.g., paragraphs 11l, 11n, 11o, 11p, 12xxxii, 12xxxiv) disclosed material facts and particulars outlining the core allegations, identifying polling stations, and alleging actions by the returned candidate's agents, which sufficiently formulated a cause of action for corrupt practice under Section 123(8) read with Section 135A and relief under Section 101(b).

Applying the principle that an election petition should not be dismissed at the threshold if it discloses a triable issue or some cause of action, even if the case appears weak or particulars need amplification, the court concluded that the pleadings, read as a whole, satisfied this threshold.

Conclusion

In light of the analysis, Justice Ete held that the applicant/returned candidate had failed to make out a sufficient ground for striking out the pleadings under Order VI Rule 16 CPC. The court found that the pleadings disclosed material facts and particulars that constitute a cause of action and raise issues suitable for determination during the trial of the election petition.

Accordingly, the interlocutory application seeking to strike out the pleadings was rejected, paving the way for the election petition to proceed to trial based on the allegations of corrupt practice and the impact of alleged void votes.