Failure to Establish Locus Standi Under S.81 RPA is Fatal; Petition Dismissed at Threshold: Punjab & Haryana High Court - 2025-01-13

P&H High Court Dismisses Hisar Election Petition at Threshold, Cites Petitioner's Lack of Locus Standi

Chandigarh, January 13, 2025 – 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 failed to establish the fundamental legal standing required to bring such a challenge. Justice Anoop Chitkara held that the petition was devoid of a cause of action and did not comply with the mandatory requirements of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

---

Case Background

The petition was filed by Raj Mahak, a cabinet minister in the Haryana Government, seeking to set aside the election of Jai Parkash, who won the Hisar seat on an Indian National Congress ticket in the June 2024 general elections. Mahak alleged corrupt practices and requested a fresh election, as well as the disqualification of Parkash for six years.

The petitioner claimed in his plea that he had contested the election as a candidate of the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP), which would grant him the right, or locus standi , to file the petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951.

Court's Scrutiny and Findings

Justice Chitkara observed a glaring contradiction within the petitioner's own pleadings. While Mahak claimed to be the BJP candidate, the list of candidates and their vote counts, included in the petition itself, showed that the BJP candidate was one Ranjit Singh. The petitioner, Raj Mahak, was not named as a contestant.

The court noted that Section 81 of the RPA strictly defines who can challenge an election:

1. A candidate at such an election, or

2. An elector (a person entitled to vote in that constituency).

The judgment highlighted that the petitioner failed on both counts.

"Perusal of the above clearly indicates that the petitioner’s name does not appear in the candidate list. A perusal of the entire election petition does not mention that the petitioner had even filed his nomination papers," Justice Chitkara stated.

Furthermore, the court found no evidence or even an averment that Raj Mahak was an elector in the Hisar constituency.

"There is also no evidence that Raj Mahak is a voter of the Hisar Parliamentary Constituency... The voter card is not attached, and no particulars have been provided," the court observed, concluding that the petitioner failed to "primafacie establish his locus."

Legal Principles Applied

The court underscored the mandatory nature of pleading material facts to establish a complete cause of action, as required by Section 83 of the RPA. It held that the failure to plead even a single material fact—such as the petitioner's status as a candidate or elector—renders an election petition liable for dismissal at the outset.

Citing a series of Supreme Court precedents, including Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi and Kanimozhi Karuna Nidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar , the court affirmed its power to dismiss such petitions summarily under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which applies to election trials.

The judgment emphasized the purpose of this power:

"The whole purpose of conferment of such powers is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the court... The sword of Damocles need not be kept hanging over [an elected representative's] head unnecessarily without point or purpose."

The court rejected the notion that it must proceed to a full trial before dismissing a defective petition, stating that it has a duty to screen petitions at the threshold and reject those that do not disclose a cause of action.

Final Decision

Concluding that the petition was fundamentally defective and lacked both locus standi and a cause of action, the High Court dismissed it.

"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 final order read.

The decision serves as a stark reminder of the stringent procedural requirements for filing election petitions and the judiciary's role in preventing meritless litigation from burdening elected officials and the judicial system.