Bombay High Court
Anna Dadu Bansode vs Sulakshana Raju Dhar And 4 Ors on 20 November, 2025
Digitally signed
by VARSHA
2025:BHC-OS:21629
VARSHA VIJAY
VIJAY RAJGURU
RAJGURU Date:
2025.11.20
15:11:22 +0530
901-aepl-24466-2025-ep-18-2025.doc
varsha IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPLICATION (L) NO. 24466 OF 2025
in
ELECTION PETITION NO. 18 OF 2025
Shri Anna Dadu Bansode, )
R/at Flat No. 23, Kakde Residency, )
Chinchwad Station, Chinchwad, )
Pune - 411019. )... Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Sulakshana Raju Dhar )
Having address at 6167, H.L.G., )
Sant Tukaram Nagar, Pimpri, )
Pune - 410018. )... Petitioner
Versus
1. Anna Dadu Bansode, )
R/at Flat No. 23, Kakde Residency, )
Chinchwad Station,Chinchwad, )
Pune - 411 019.
2. TIIF Returning Officer, )
206 - Pimpri Assembly Constituency, )
Dr. Hedgewar Bhavan, Sr No. 26 Nigdi )
411044.
3. The Chief Electoral Officer of Maharashtra,)
Page no. 1 of 31
::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2025 21:08:25 :::
901-aepl-24466-2025-ep-18-2025.doc
152, Maharshi Karve Road, Mantralaya, )
Fort, Mumbai - 400 32. )
4. The Election Commission of India, )
Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, )
New Delhi - I 10001. )
5. District Election Officer/ )
District Collector, )
Having address at Collector Office, )
B Wing, 4th Floor, Pune - 411 001. )..Respondents
Mr. Tejas Deshmukh i/by. Mayur Govind Sanap and Mikhil
Chate, for Applicant/Orig. Respondent No.1.
Ms. Sneha Bhange a/w. Mr. Swapnil L. Sangle and Ms.
Divya Verma, for Respondent/Original Petitioner.
Ms. Naira Jeejebhoy a/w. Mr. Arun Panickar, Mr. Vinay Nair
and Mr. Tanmay Pawar, for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5.
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
RESERVED ON : 8th OCTOBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 20th NOVEMBER 2025
JUDGMENT :
-
BASIC FACTS:
1. This application is filed by respondent no.1, under
Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ('CPC'),
Page no. 2 of 31
901-aepl-24466-2025-ep-18-2025.doc
for rejection of the election petition. The election petition is
filed to challenge the election of the applicant as a member
of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from 206 (Pimpri-
S.C.) Assembly Constituency in the election held on 20 th
November 2024. The applicant was declared elected on 23 rd
November 2024. The petitioner had also contested the said
election and secured the second-highest votes.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT:
2. The applicant, i.e., the successful candidate, has raised
an objection that no meaningful cause of action is pleaded in
the election petition. Learned counsel for the applicant
referred to the relevant averments in the petition to support
his submissions that the petition is filed on vague allegations.
In paragraph 6 of the petition, the petitioner has raised
objections to the information regarding the applicant's assets,
as stated in Form 26, alleging that a false affidavit was filed.
Copies of the 7/12 extracts are attached to the petition to
allege that the applicant has concealed that he jointly owned
agricultural land bearing Gat No. 1593, where his and his
family members' names appear in the 7/12 extract as
Page no. 3 of 31
901-aepl-24466-2025-ep-18-2025.doc
shareholders of the society that owns the land. It is further
alleged that when the applicant contested the election to the
said constituency in the years 2009, 2014, and 2019, the
liability of his spouse is seen from past affidavits. However, in
the affidavit filed at the time of the present election, the
applicant had made a false statement on oath, as the liability
shown in the earlier affidavits is not explained. Learned
counsel for the applicant submits that the existing liability of
the applicant's spouse is not alleged, and the earlier forms
are not annexed to the petition. Hence, there cannot be a
fishing inquiry in the election petition.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant points out the
allegations made in paragraphs 27 to 31 of the petition and
submits that the allegations are vague and would not
constitute any of the grounds for setting aside the applicant's
election. The verification clause in the election petition is not
as per the prescribed format contemplated under Section
83(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ('of
the 1951 Act'), read with Order VI Rule 15 of the CPC.
Considering the nature of the allegations in the petition, the
Page no. 4 of 31
901-aepl-24466-2025-ep-18-2025.doc
petitioner was under an obligation to specify the paragraph
number of the petition separately, stating which paragraphs
are based on personal knowledge and which on information.
The petitioner was also under an obligation to disclose the
source of personal knowledge. According to the learned
counsel for the applicant, all the allegations made in the
petition cannot be based on personal knowledge, and thus, it
was necessary for the petitioner to disclose the source of
knowledge.
4. To support his submissions, learned counsel for the
applicant relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Jyoti Basu and Ors Vs. Debi Ghosal and Ors 1.
He relied on paragraph 8 of the judgment to support his
submission that the election petition is neither an action at
common law nor in equity. It is a statutory proceeding to
which neither the common law nor the principles of equity
apply, but only those rules which the statute makes apply. It
is a special jurisdiction, and as such, it must always be
exercised in accordance with the statute that created it.
Learned counsel for the applicant thus submits that Section
1 (1982) 1 SCC 691
Page no. 5 of 31
901-aepl-24466-2025-ep-18-2025.doc
81, which prescribes the filing of the election petition, is to be
strictly adhered to.
5. On a similar proposition, learned counsel for the
applicant relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Hari Shanker Jain Vs. Sonia Gandhi 2. He
points out that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said decision
held that the petition which is hopelessly vague and
completely bald in the allegations made and if the allegations
are not possible within the personal knowledge of the
petitioner but still verified as true to the knowledge without
indicating the source would amount to pleadings without
disclosing any cause of action and thus, would be liable to be
rejected at the threshold.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied on the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Karim
Uddin Barbhuiya Vs. Aminul Haque Laskar and Ors 3. He
submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if the
allegations contained in the petition did not set out the
requirement of Sections 81 and 83 of the 1951 Act, the
2 (2001) 8 SCC 233
3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 509
Page no. 6 of 31
901-aepl-24466-2025-ep-18-2025.doc
pleadings are liable to be struck out, and the election petition
is liable to be rejected at the threshold. On a similar
proposition of law, the learned counsel for the applicant also
relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Kanimozhi Karunanidhi Vs. A. Santhana Kumar 4.
Learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, submits that the
election petition deserves to be rejected at the threshold for
non-compliance with Sections 81(1) and 83 read with Section
61 of the 1951 Act. Learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that this Court, in the decision of Anil Subhash
Sawant Vs. Samadhan Mahadeo Autade and Others 5, held
that allegations in respect of the functioning of EVM
machines, merely based on conjectures and apprehensions,
and without any clarity as to how and in which manner, it has
resulted in an incorrect practice or an irregularity materially
affecting the result of the election, would be liable to be
rejected at the threshold.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that
the election petition suffers from defects of a substantial
4 2023 SCC Online SC 573
5 2025 SCC Online Bom 2719
Page no. 7 of 31
901-aepl-24466-2025-ep-18-2025.doc
nature that cannot be cured. The petitioner neither states a
concise statement of the material facts nor provides full
particulars of the alleged corrupt practice. The petition has
not been verified in accordance with the provisions of the
CPC. Hence, there is a substantial defect in verification that
cannot be cured. He further submits that there is a
substantial defect in the affidavit required to be filed under
the proviso to Section 83(1) of the 1951 Act, read with Rule
94 A of the Conduct of the Election Rules and Form No. 25
prescribed under the Rules. Hence, in view of the defects in
the petition that cannot be cured, the petition cannot be said
to be filed based on the disclosure of a meaningful cause of
action.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that
the right to dispute the election, not being a common law
right, the statutory right has to be confined to the provisions
of the 1951 Act and the rules framed thereunder. Thus, if the
statutory mandates are not complied with, the petition
deserves to be rejected at the threshold. Learned counsel for
the applicant submitted that the election petition is bereft of
Page no. 8 of 31
901-aepl-24466-2025-ep-18-2025.doc
material facts and full particulars of the corrupt practices.
None of the grounds specified under Section 100 of the 1951
Act is pleaded as contemplated by Section 81 of the 1951
Act. Hence, in view of the well-settled legal principles in the
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petition is liable to
be rejected at the threshold.
9. All the allegations in the election petition are regarding
corrupt practice as contemplated under Section 100(1)(b) of
the 1951 Act, hence, learned counsel for the applicant
referred to paragraphs 6 and 7 of the petition and submitted
that in the absence of any material particulars to support the
allegations as contemplated under Section 100 of the 1951
Act, the election petition based on vague allegations would
not constitute any meaningful cause of action. Learned
counsel for the applicant, therefore, submits that the election
petition deserves to be rejected at the threshold.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
allegations in the election petition are based on material
Page no. 9 of 31
901-aepl-24466-2025-ep-18-2025.doc
particulars pleaded, which would warrant a trial. Paragraphs
28 and 23 disclose the source of the allegations as the
petitioner's personal knowledge and observations. The
petitioner has also pleaded that her request for further
particulars under the Right to Information Act was denied.
Hence, the particulars pleaded in the petition are based on
her personal observations during the election and thus, the
verification clause states that the contents are based on her
personal knowledge. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied
upon the letter dated 1st January 2025, issued to the District
Election Officer under Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election
Rules, 1961, for supplying copies of Form No. 17-C,
pertaining to all polling booths in the constituency and
supplying all complete recordings pertaining to the election
process. However, her application was replied to on 2 nd
January 2025, and the information was denied. Both copies
of the reply and letter are annexed to the petition to support
her pleadings regarding the allegations made in the petition.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the
documents referred to in the petition are annexed to the
Page no. 10 of 31
901-aepl-24466-2025-ep-18-2025.doc
petition and are separately verified as required under Section
83(2) of the 1951 Act. Form No. 25, as required under the
Rules, is duly verified and filed along with the election
petition.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the
various averments in the election petition and submitted that
the material facts are pleaded and that all the particulars are
not necessary as the petitioner would lead evidence to
support the material facts that are pleaded. To support her
submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Virender Nath Gautam Vs. Satpal Singh and Ors 6. She
submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the
expression "material facts" is neither defined under the Act
nor in the Code. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that what
particulars could be said to be "material facts" would depend
upon the facts of each case, and no rule of universal
application can be laid down. It is, however, essential that all
basic and primary facts which must be proved at the trial
must be pleaded by the party to establish the existence of a
6 (2007) 3 SCC 617
Page no. 11 of 31
901-aepl-24466-2025-ep-18-2025.doc
cause of action or defence, and that they are material facts
and must be stated in the pleading by the party. She thus
submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the particulars
are required to be complete to ensure the conduct of a fair
trial that would not take the opposite party by surprise.
Hence, once the material facts are pleaded, the particulars
can be brought on record in the trial through evidence.
13. On a similar proposition, learned counsel for the
applicant also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Ashraf Kokkur Vs. K.V. Abdul Khader
and Others7. She submits that in the present case, the
pleadings, if taken as a whole, would clearly show that they
constitute the material facts so as to pose a triable issue.
Hence, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said
decision, the present petition, which contains basic pleadings
that would warrant a trial, cannot be rejected at the threshold.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petition also raised grounds and objections on the
nominations. The petitioner had raised objections to the
7 (2015) 1 SCC 129
Page no. 12 of 31
901-aepl-24466-2025-ep-18-2025.doc
nomination of the applicant. A copy of the objections raised
at the time of accepting nomination is relied upon by the
petitioner, and the same is annexed to the petition. All the
particulars with regard to the objections raised on
nominations are pleaded in paragraph 8 of the petition as
contemplated under Section 100 (1)(d)(i) of the 1951 Act.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
the petition also contains allegations about the EVM
machines. Hence, in view of the allegations on the EVM
machine, a forensic assessment would be necessary, and
thus, a trial would be warranted in the petition. To support
her submissions on the requirement of the forensic
assessment, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balwan
Singh Vs. Lakshmi Narain and Others8.
16. With reference to the submissions made on behalf of
the applicant by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Anil Subhash Sawant, learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that no personal
8 1960 SCC OnLine SC 281
Page no. 13 of 31
901-aepl-24466-2025-ep-18-2025.doc
allegations were made in the facts of the said case, and the
allegations were based solely on the EVM machines. Hence,
the legal principles settled in the said decision would not
apply to the facts of the present case, where personal
allegations are also made, in addition to those regarding the
EVM machines. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore,
submits that the present petition would warrant a trial, and
the facts pleaded to support the allegations are sufficient to
warrant the trial. In view of the well-settled legal principles
regarding want of sufficient pleadings, the material
particulars would be proved by the petitioner at the time of
trial. She therefore submits that the petition cannot be
rejected at the threshold under Order VII, Rule 11 of the
CPC.
CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS:
17. I have carefully perused the pleadings in the petition
and the supporting documents. The allegations in the petition
are twofold. Firstly, the allegations are personal, pertaining to
the suppression of material facts regarding the applicant's
properties and financial liabilities. The allegations are
Page no. 14 of 31
901-aepl-24466-2025-ep-18-2025.doc
pleaded in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the petition. Copies of the
revenue records are relied upon to support the allegations.
The allegations pertain to the objections raised by the
petitioner regarding an alleged false affidavit and nomination
papers filed by the applicant. A copy of the objections to the
affidavit and nomination papers filed by the applicant at the
time of scrutiny is produced on record. The petitioner has
alleged that discrepancies exist between the applicant's
affidavit and the relevant documents. Hence, the petitioner
submitted the objections to the Election Commission via
email. Copies of the objections and the emails are annexed
to the petition. It is further pleaded that on the same day,
objections were disposed of by holding that the objections
cannot be considered as the same were filed after the
scrutiny process was over. The petitioner has pleaded that
she submitted objections on 30th October 2024 before 11:00
am, i.e., before the scrutiny process commenced. However,
according to the petitioner, although the Returning Officer
accepted the objection, it was rejected on erroneous
grounds, as it was raised after the scrutiny was over.
Page no. 15 of 31
901-aepl-24466-2025-ep-18-2025.doc
18. Secondly, the petitioner has raised objections to non-
compliance with the statutory requirements. She has made
allegations regarding the EVM-VVPAT machines, which are
pleaded in paragraphs 28 to 34. The petitioner has stated
that the mandatory provisions for ensuring compliance with
Section 61-A, as prescribed for the use of voting machines,
were not followed. She has pleaded that the serial
numbers/unique identification marks on the machines had
stickers pasted on them, when in fact it is mandatory that the
EVM machines have the serial numbers engraved on the
cabinet or on a metal plate riveted to the cabinet. The
petitioner has further pleaded that, in the absence of
permanent, irreplaceable, and unique identification marks,
the EVM machines cannot be used in the conduct of
elections. Hence, the election of the applicant should be
declared void on account of the fact that the EVM machines,
including the ballot units, control units and the VVPAT
printers used in the election process, did not have any
permanent serial numbers/unique identification, or marks;
instead, they had detachable stickers. It is therefore the
petitioner's case that, in view of the allegations made in the
Page no. 16 of 31
901-aepl-24466-2025-ep-18-2025.doc
said paragraphs, a forensic assessment would be necessary.
Hence, the petition would warrant a trial. So far as further
particulars on the allegations are concerned, the petitioner
has relied upon the application filed under Rule 93 of the
Conduct of the Election Rules for the supply of necessary
particulars. However, her application was rejected. A
rejection letter is also produced on record.
19. The petitioner has verified the petition as contemplated
under Section 83(1)(c) of the said Act of 1951, and all the
annexures are independently verified as contemplated under
Section 83(2) of the said Act of 1951. Form No. 25 is also
duly filed as contemplated under Rule 94 of the Conduct of
Election Rules 1961. Thus. The petition is filed as
contemplated under Chapter II of the said Act of 1951.
20. To examine the rival contentions on whether the
petition warrants a trial or should be rejected at the threshold,
it is necessary to discuss the relevant, well-settled legal
principles relied upon by both parties.
LEGAL POSITION:
Page no. 17 of 31
901-aepl-24466-2025-ep-18-2025.doc
21. In Jyoti Basu, the appellants before the Apex Court
were the Chief Minister and two Ministers of the Government
of West Bengal, who were impleaded as parties to an
election petition challenging the election of the returned
candidate on the grounds of alleged corrupt practices. They
filed an application before the High Court to strike out their
names. Their application was dismissed by the High Court on
the ground that they were proper parties to the election
petition. The Apex Court held that no one may be joined as a
party to an election petition otherwise than as provided by
Sections 82 and 86(4) of the Act and that a person who is not
a candidate may not be joined as a respondent to the
election petition. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that a
challenge to an election is a statutory proceeding to which
neither the common law nor the principles of equity apply,
but only those rules which the statute makes apply. It is held
that the special jurisdiction has always to be exercised in
accordance with the statute creating it, and no election may
be questioned except in the manner provided by the
Representation of the People Act. Therefore, the
Representation of the People Act has been held to be a
Page no. 18 of 31
901-aepl-24466-2025-ep-18-2025.doc
complete and self-contained code within which any rights
claimed in relation to an election or an election dispute must
be found.
22. In Hari Shanker Jain, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that
"Material facts" required to be stated are those facts that can
be considered as materials supporting the allegations made,
that would afford a basis for the allegations made in the
petition and would constitute the cause of action as
understood in the Code of Civil Procedure. It is the duty of
the court to examine the petition irrespective of any written
statement or denial and reject the petition if it does not
disclose a cause of action.
23. In Karim Uddin Barbhuiya, the Hon'ble Apex Court held
that pleadings in an election petition have to be precise,
specific, and unambiguous, and if the election petition does
not disclose a cause of action, it is liable to be dismissed in
limine. Section 83(1)(b) mandates that when the allegation of
'corrupt practice' is made, the petition shall set forth full
particulars of the corrupt practice, including a statement of
the names of the parties alleged to have committed such
Page no. 19 of 31
901-aepl-24466-2025-ep-18-2025.doc
corrupt practice and the date and place of committing such
corrupt practice. If the allegations contained in the petition do
not set out the grounds as contemplated by Section 100 and
do not conform to the requirement under Sections 81 and 83
of the Act, the petition is liable to be rejected under Order VII
Rule 11, read with Sections 83 and 87 of the RP Act.
24. In Kanimozhi Karunanidhi, the Hon'ble Apex Court held
that Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act, 1951 mandates that an
Election Petition shall contain a concise statement of material
facts on which the petitioner relies. If material facts are not
stated in an election petition, the same is liable to be
dismissed on that ground alone, as the case would be
covered under Clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC.
25. In Anil Sawant, this court held that following the
mandate under various judgments of the Supreme Court,
and particularly in the case of Kanimozhi Karunanidhi and
Karim Uddin Barbhuiya, even a singular omission of a
statutory requirement must entail dismissal of the Election
Petition by having recourse to provisions of OrderVII Rule
11of the CPC.
Page no. 20 of 31
901-aepl-24466-2025-ep-18-2025.doc
26. In Virendra Nath Gautam, the judgment and order of
the High Court of Himachal Pradesh was challenged, and the
High Court upheld the preliminary objection that the election
petition did not disclose material facts and was liable to be
dismissed. The election petition alleged several irregularities,
illegalities, and discrepancies in the voters' list and defective
electronic voting machines. It is held that if all material facts
in accordance with the provisions of the Act are not set out in
the election petition, it is liable to be dismissed on that
ground as the case would be covered by clause ( a) of sub-
section (1) of Section 83 of the Act read with clause ( a) of
Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code. The expression "material
facts" is explained in paragraphs 31, 34 and 50 as under:
"31. The expression "material facts" has neither been defined
in the Act nor in the Code. According to the dictionary
meaning, "material" means "fundamental", "vital", "basic",
"cardinal", "central", "crucial", "decisive", "essential", "pivotal",
"indispensable", "elementary" or "primary". [Burton's Legal
Thesaurus(3rd Edn.), p. 349]. The phrase "material facts",
therefore, may be said to be those facts upon which a party
relies for his claim or defence. In other words, "material facts"
are facts upon which the plaintiff's cause of action or the
defendant's defence depends. What particulars could be said
Page no. 21 of 31
901-aepl-24466-2025-ep-18-2025.doc
to be "material facts" would depend upon the facts of each
case and no rule of universal application can be laid down. It
is, however, absolutely essential that all basic and primary
facts which must be proved at the trial by the party to
establish the existence of a cause of action or defence are
material facts and must be stated in the pleading by the
party."
"34. A distinction between "material facts" and "particulars",
however, must not be overlooked. "Material facts" are
primary or basic facts which must be pleaded by the plaintiff
or by the defendant in support of the case set up by him
either to prove his cause of action or defence. "Particulars",
on the other hand, are details in support of material facts
pleaded by the party. They amplify, refine and embellish
material facts by giving distinctive touch to the basic contours
of a picture already drawn so as to make it full, more clear
and more informative. "Particulars" thus ensure conduct of
fair trial and would not take the opposite party by surprise."
"50. There is distinction between facta probanda (the facts
required to be proved i.e. material facts) and facta
probantia(the facts by means of which they are proved i.e.
particulars or evidence). It is settled law that pleadings must
contain only facta probanda and not facta probantia. The
material facts on which the party relies for his claim are
called facta probanda and they must be stated in the
pleadings. But the facts or facts by means of which facta
probanda (material facts) are proved and which are in the
Page no. 22 of 31
901-aepl-24466-2025-ep-18-2025.doc
nature of facta probantia(particulars or evidence) need not be
set out in the pleadings. They are not facts in issue, but only
relevant facts required to be proved at the trial in order to
establish the fact in issue."
emphasis applied by me
27. In Ashraf Kokkur, the Apex Court held that the limited
inquiry under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the CPC is intended only
to determine whether the petition should be thrown out at the
threshold. In an election petition, the requirement under
Section 83 of the RP Act is to provide a precise and concise
statement of material facts. It is held that the expression
"material facts" plainly means facts pertaining to the subject
matter and which are relied on by the election petitioner, and
if not proved, the election petitioner fails at the trial. The Apex
Court referred to and relied upon the decision of the three-
Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Hari Shanker Jain, where
it is held that the expression "cause of action" would mean
facts to be proved, and that the function of the party is to
present a full picture of the cause of action with such further
information to make opposite party understand the case he
will have to meet. It was held that material facts would
Page no. 23 of 31
901-aepl-24466-2025-ep-18-2025.doc
include positive statements of facts as well as positive
averments of a negative fact, if necessary, and that material
facts are such preliminary facts which must be proved at the
trial by a party to establish the existence of a cause of action.
The Apex Court discussed all the well-settled legal principles
and concluded in paragraph 29 as under:
"29. Finally, as cautioned by this Court in Raj Narain v.Indira
Nehru Gandhi [(1972) 3 SCC 850] , it was held that : (SCC p.
858, para 19)
"19. Rules of pleadings are intended as aids for a fair trial
and for reaching a just decision. An action at law should
not be equated to a game of chess. Provisions of law are
not mere formulae to be observed as rituals. Beneath the
words of a provision of law, generally speaking, there lies
a juristic principle. It is the duty of the court to ascertain
that principle and implement it."
(emphasis supplied)"
28. The decision of the Apex Court in Balwan Singh is
based on the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as it
stood before the 1966 amendments. It was an appeal against
the High Court's decision, which held that the corrupt practice
had been proved and set aside the appellant's election. The
election tribunal had dismissed the election petition after a
Page no. 24 of 31
901-aepl-24466-2025-ep-18-2025.doc
full-fledged trial, holding that the alleged corrupt practice had
not been proved. The Apex Court dismissed the appeal and
confirmed the order of the High Court. In considering whether
a corrupt practice described in Section 123(5) is committed, it
is held with reference to the allegation in the said case being
the hiring or procuring of a vehicle for the conveyance of the
electors, that if full particulars of conveying by a vehicle of
electors to or from any polling station are given, Section 83 is
duly complied with, even if the particulars of the contract of
hiring, as distinguished from the fact of hiring, are not given.
In the facts of that case it was held that if particulars in
support of the plea of the vehicle being hired or procured by
the candidate or his agent or by another person was used for
conveying voters to or from the polling station are set out,
failure to set out particulars of the contract of hiring or
arrangement of procuring will not render the petition
defective.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS:
29. In view of the well-settled legal principles, all "material
facts" must be pleaded by the party in support of the case set
Page no. 25 of 31
901-aepl-24466-2025-ep-18-2025.doc
up by him. The object and purpose are to enable the
opposite party to know the case he has to meet with.
However, "particulars" are the details of the case which is in
the nature of evidence a party would be leading at the time of
trial. The law requires only'full particulars' and not 'material
particulars'.
30. In the present case, the petitioner has challenged the
election on the ground that it is void under Section 100(1)(b)
and 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of the said Act. In paragraphs 4 to 7,
the petitioner has pleaded the facts alleging that the
applicant suppressed true and correct information regarding
assets and liabilities in the affidavit, in terms of Rule 4A of
the Rules of 1961, read with the prescribed Form 26. The
petitioner provided full particulars of the alleged suppression,
including details of the property and the liabilities suppressed
by the applicant. The petitioner has annexed relevant
revenue records to support the allegation of non-disclosure
of the assets. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that
the particulars regarding the alleged assets are not owned by
the applicant, but his name is entered as the only office
Page no. 26 of 31
901-aepl-24466-2025-ep-18-2025.doc
bearer of the society that owns the property. However, when
examining whether the petition is liable to be rejected at the
threshold under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC, the
explanation or defence cannot be considered. The
explanation or the defence of the applicant would be a matter
of trial.
31. The petitioner has pleaded regarding the objections
she filed to the nomination of the applicant and further
challenged the Returning Officer's rejection of those
objections. She has pleaded that her objections were
submitted much before the scrutiny process started.
However, the returning officer, though he accepted her
objection at that time, only to give undue benefit to the
applicant, did not give an acknowledgement and later
rejected her objection on the ground that it was received
belatedly. The petitioner has annexed the relevant
documents to support her allegations. The petitioner has thus
raised an objection that the election result has been
materially affected due to the improper acceptance of the
applicant's nomination.
Page no. 27 of 31
901-aepl-24466-2025-ep-18-2025.doc
32. To substantiate the allegations, the petitioner has
pleaded in paragraphs 30 to 39 that the Rules of 1981 and
the guidelines, as well as the administrative Standard
Operating Procedures, were not followed for the use of the
EVM-VVPAT machines. She has alleged that the EVM
machines did not contain permanent, irreplaceable, or unique
identification marks, and instead had detachable stickers for
the identification numbers. She has also pleaded that the
Electoral Registration Officer appointed under the
Representation of Peoples Act 1950 did not follow the
mandatory procedure to ensure full and complete enrolment
of women and voters in the age group of 18 and 19 years
old. The petitioner has stated that she applied for copies of
Form 17C, which is crucial for verifying and tallying total
votes polled. However, her application for the supply copies
of the forms was rejected. Hence, it is contended that, in
view of the breaches committed on the polling day, the
shifting and transportation of the EVMs and their storage, as
well as the names of many voters missing from the voters'
list from various polling booths, have materially affected the
election of the applicant. The petitioner has pleaded that the
Page no. 28 of 31
901-aepl-24466-2025-ep-18-2025.doc
Election Commission of India did not comply with Section
61A of the said Act. Hence, the election is liable to be set
aside under Section 100 (1)(d)(iv) of the said Act.
33. The petitioner pleaded that she had applied for copies
of Form 17-C pertaining to all polling booths and for complete
video recordings of the election process. However, her
application was rejected by the District Election Officer. The
petitioner has annexed a copy of her application and the
rejection letter. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the contents of the petition are based on her
personal knowledge and observations during the election
process; hence, the verification of all the paragraphs of the
petition is based on her personal knowledge. In view of the
nature of the allegations in the petition, the petitioner has
stated that the averments are based on her personal
knowledge. Hence, there would be no question of disclosing
the source of personal knowledge.
34. The petition is bereft of any pleadings to challenge the
election on the ground contemplated under Section 100(1)(b)
read with Section 123 of the said Act. However, the petition
Page no. 29 of 31
901-aepl-24466-2025-ep-18-2025.doc
contains pleadings to support the allegations to challenge the
election on the grounds contemplated under Section 100(1)
(d)(i) and (iv) of the said Act. Whether or not the election
petitioner can prove the said allegations is a matter of
evidence, which can be considered only at the stage of trial.
By no stretch of imagination, however, it can be said that the
material fact, that is, the allegations regarding the challenge
to the election on the grounds contemplated under Section
100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of the said Act, has not been stated in
the petition for rejecting the petition at the threshold. The
petitioner has also pleaded that the applicant has secured
1,09,239 votes, and the petitioner has secured 72,575 votes,
the second highest votes; hence, the grounds of challenge
would materially affect the election result. The legal
principles settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the decisions
of Virendra Nath Gautam and Ashraf Kokkur, squarely
support the arguments made on behalf of the petitioner. The
legal principles settled in the decisions relied upon by the
learned counsel for the applicant would not be of any
assistance to the applicant. The material facts which are
required to be pleaded in the election petition as required by
Page no. 30 of 31
901-aepl-24466-2025-ep-18-2025.doc
Section 83(1) of the Act, read with Order 7 Rule 11( a) of the
Code, have been pleaded by the petitioner, and the cause of
action has been disclosed. Therefore, the petition cannot be
rejected at the threshold.
35. Hence, for the reasons recorded above, the Interim
Application (L) No. 24466 of 2025 is dismissed.
(GAURI GODSE, J.)
Page no. 31 of 31
