Election Petition With Prima Facie ‘Material Facts’ Cannot Be Dismissed At Threshold: Gauhati High Court on S.83 RP Act - 2025-06-27

Tracking Legal Developments.

Gauhati HC: Election Petition Alleging Corrupt Practices Cannot Be Dismissed Prematurely if Prima Facie 'Material Facts' Are Pleaded

Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh – The Gauhati High Court, in a significant order, has ruled that an election petition containing prima facie "material facts" regarding corrupt practices cannot be dismissed at a preliminary stage. Justice Mitali Thakuria , presiding over the Itanagar Bench, dismissed an interlocutory application seeking the rejection of an election petition filed against the declared winner of the 36-Nari Koyu (ST) Assembly Constituency.

The court held that issues such as the consent of the returned candidate for alleged corrupt acts and the sufficiency of evidence are matters for trial and cannot be summarily adjudicated without recording evidence.

---

Background of the Case

The case stems from an election petition (Election Petition No. 4/2024) filed by Gegong Apang , challenging the election of Tojir Kadu as the MLA for the 36-Nari Koyu constituency. Apang 's petition alleged several corrupt practices, including booth capturing, undue influence, intimidation of voters and party workers, impersonation, and casting of votes for deceased persons.

In response, the returned candidate, Tojir Kadu , filed an interlocutory application [IA(C)/56/2025] seeking the dismissal of the election petition under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and Section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. Kadu argued that the petition lacked a clear cause of action as the allegations were vague, general, and devoid of the necessary "material facts."

Arguments from Both Sides

Arguments of the Applicant ( Tojir Kadu ):

Mr. D. Mazumder, Senior Counsel for Kadu, argued that the allegations were frivolous and lacked specific details. Key points raised were: - An alleged attack on the petitioner's proposer occurred after the nomination was already filed, making it improbable. - Allegations of threats lacked specifics like dates, times, and names. - The petitioner’s supporters allegedly barred from the scrutiny process were not legally authorized to be present. - The large victory margin of 1694 votes could not be "materially affected" by the few alleged instances of impersonation. - The voting data from a purportedly "captured" booth contradicted the claim, as 70 electors did not vote and the petitioner himself secured 29 votes there. - Crucially, the petition failed to plead that the alleged corrupt practices were committed with the "consent" of the returned candidate, a mandatory requirement under Section 100(1)(b) of the RP Act.

Arguments of the Respondent ( Gegong Apang ):

Mr. N. Pada, counsel for the election petitioner, countered that the petition sufficiently detailed the material facts of the corrupt practices. - Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the petition specifically outlined instances of undue influence and booth capturing, including names of individuals involved, dates, and locations. - The petition was supported by numerous annexed documents. - He asserted that while material facts must be pleaded, the "material particulars" can be furnished and proven through evidence during the trial. - The non-supply of video footage at this stage was not prejudicial, as it would be produced during the trial, giving the applicant ample opportunity for defence.

Court's Analysis and Ruling

After considering the arguments, Justice Mitali Thakuria found that the election petition could not be dismissed at this nascent stage.

The Court observed:

"…this Court is of the view that the election petitioner has prima facie pleaded the “material facts” in his election petition necessary to sustain the cause of action, particularly in paragraph Nos. 12 & 13 including all the sub- paragraphs therein. Therefore, it cannot be held that the present election petition is liable to be dismissed at this stage for the want of “material facts” in the pleadings."

The judgment addressed the key legal issues raised:

On 'Material Facts' vs. 'Material Particulars': The Court held that the petition contained sufficient averments to prima facie establish "material facts." Specific instances of alleged impersonation, prevention of supporters from entering the Returning Officer's office, and intimidation were concisely pleaded.

On the 'Consent' Requirement: The Court noted that the absence of a specific averment pleading the "consent" of the returned candidate is not fatal at the preliminary stage. It stated, "Whether such consent was in fact given is a matter of evidence, which can only be ascertained during the course of trial... such a finding cannot be rendered at this preliminary stage of the proceedings, in the absence of any recorded evidence."

On Prematurity of Dismissal: The Court deemed the application for dismissal premature, emphasizing that both parties would have adequate opportunity to substantiate their claims with evidence during the trial. The issues raised by the applicant were deemed triable issues that could not be decided summarily.

Final Decision

Concluding that the application was devoid of merit at this stage, the High Court disposed of the interlocutory application. The prayer to reject the election petition and strike out the pleadings was denied, paving the way for the election petition to proceed to a full trial.