Manipur High Court
Shri Sorokhaibam Rajen Singh vs Smt. Pukhrambam Sumati Devi on 12 September, 2023
Digitally signed by
ABUJAM ABUJAM SURJIT SINGH 1
SURJIT SINGH Date: 2023.09.13
12:19:42 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC(El. Pet.) No.7 of 2022
Ref: El. Petn. No.3 of 2022 with
El. Recr. Petn. No.13 of 2022
Shri Sorokhaibam Rajen Singh, aged about 57 years, S/o Shri
Sorokhaibam Yaimabi Singh, resident of Salam Keikhu-(A),
Tehsil-Salam, P.O. Langjing, P.S. Patsoi, District-Imphal
West, Manipur -795113.
.... Applicant/Respondent No. 1
- Versus -
Smt. Pukhrambam Sumati Devi, aged about 63 years, W/O
(Late) Wangkheimayum Brajabidhu Singh, resident of
Lamdeng Mayai Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Lamsang, Imphal West
District, Manipur -795146.
... Respondent/Election Petitioner
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioner : Mr. A. Mohendro, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. HS. Paonam, Sr.Adv.
Date of hearing &
reserving Judgment & Order : 27.06.2023
Date of Judgment and Order : 12.09.2023
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 1
2
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Order VII, Rule 11
(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 86(1) of the
Representation of People Act, 1951 to reject the election petition.
2. The petitioner is the first respondent and first respondent herein is the
election petitioner in the election petition.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their
array in the election petition.
4. The election petitioner has filed the election petition to set aside the
election of the first respondent as returned candidate from 17-Lamsang Assembly
Constituency for 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly Election, 2022 and to declare
the election petitioner as returned candidate from 17-Lamsang Assembly
Constituency.
5. Pending election petition, the first respondent has filed the present
petition on the grounds that the election petitioner has failed to mention material
facts which would constitute the cause of action for filing the election petition; the
allegation made against the first respondent does not constitute any corrupt practice;
the election petitioner has already agitated the nomination of the first respondent
before the Returning Officer on the ground of educational qualification and the age
and the same was rejected by the Returning Officer on 9.2.2022 observing that it
does not amount to defect of substantive nature and the election petitioner has
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 2
3
made inconsistency plea and the non-compliance of Section 83 of the
Representation of People Act.
6. Resisting this petition, the election petitioner filed affidavit-in-opposition
stating that there is cause of action for filing the election petition; the material facts
which constitute the cause of action has been categorically stated in the election
petition. The non-disclosure of information or incomplete information while filing the
nomination paper along with Form-26 affidavit by the first respondent amounts to
corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Representation of People Act. The first
respondent has admitted that he has filed false affidavits regarding his educational
qualifications, father's name and his age in the past elections while filing his
nominations. He has also admitted that in the election in question, the first
respondent has stated false educational qualification. The question of challenging
the orders of the election authority does not arise and, as such, the very statements
made by the first respondent that the election petitioner has not challenged the
orders of the Returning Officer is highly ill-conceived and the same is without any
basis. All material particulars about the non-disclosure and how the same has
affected the voters have been mentioned in the election petition. All the provisions
of the Representation of People Act have been complied with while filing the election
petition and the correction appeared in para No.4.10 of the election petition was
carried out with the permission of the Court. The grounds stated in the election
petition are in conformity with the provisions of the Representation of People Act.
The votes obtained by the first respondent are under undue influence which
amounts to corrupt practice. As such, the election of the first respondent is liable to
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 3
4
the declared as void and the election petitioner may be declared as returned
candidate.
7. Mr. HS. Paonam, learned senior counsel for the first respondent
submitted that the election petition is liable to be rejected at the threshold under
Order 7, Rule 11(a) CPC read with Section 86(1) of the Representation of People
Act. Arguing further, the learned counsel submitted that the election petitioner has
failed to state material facts which would constitute the cause of action for filing the
election petition and has failed to mention the material facts which if proved would
amount to corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Representation of People Act
allegedly to be committed by the returned candidate.
8. Mr. HS. Paonam, learned senior counsel would submit that the
allegation mentioned in the election petition does not constitute corrupt practice and
the specific arguments of the learned counsel is that the election petitioner alleged
that the first respondent has mentioned the highest qualification differently in the
earlier elections. The particulars of the educational qualification mentioned in the
affidavits of earlier Manipur Legislative Assembly Election cannot be agitated in the
present election petition and the present election petition must confine to the
affidavit filed for the 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly Election, 2022 and the
contents of the earlier affidavits lost its significance and should have been
challenged at the time when it was valid.
9. Mr. HS. Paonam, learned senior counsel further submitted that the
election petitioner alleged that the first respondent had misrepresented his father's
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 4
5
name in the 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly Elections and that
in the 9th and 10th Legislative Assembly Elections, the name of the father of the first
respondent was misrepresented as "S.Nilla Singh" and in the 11th and 12th
Legislative Assembly Elections, the name of the father of the first respondent was
mentioned as "Sorakhaibam Yaimabi Singh". The aforesaid statement does not
constitute ingredients of any corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 of
the representation of People Act and also does not amount to concealing of material
facts. In the matter of filing of affidavit and the nomination with respect to election,
the information must be the same as those in the electoral roll and the election
petitioner cannot agitate the contents of the affidavits filed in connection with the
earlier term of State Assembly Elections.
10. Mr. HS. Paonam, learned senior counsel next submitted that the
election petitioner alleged that the first respondent had mentioned his age as 43
years in the 9th Manipur Legislative Assembly Election, 2007; 53 years in the 10 th
Manipur Legislative Assembly Election, 2012; 52 years in the 11th Manipur
Legislative Assembly Election, 2017 and 57 years in the 12 th Manipur Legislative
Assembly Election, 2022. According to the learned counsel, the aforesaid statement
does not constitute the ingredients of any corrupt practice and the election petitioner
cannot agitate the contents of affidavits filed in connection with the earlier elections.
11. Mr. HS. Paonam, learned senior counsel then submitted that the
election petitioner alleged that the first respondent had mentioned in the affidavit in
Form-26 that his spouse closing balance is Rs.42,53,095.23 as on 31.1.2022 and in
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 5
6
absence of filing of income tax return by his spouse goes to show that his wife is
having undisclosed source of income and that the vague disclosure of income of his
wife being a Manager of Brick Field is not sufficient when a sum of Rs.42,53,095.23
is found in her account as on 31.1.2022. The election petitioner also alleged that the
first respondent mentioned that his other source of income and as that of his wife is
from land compensation. However, no particulars have been given by him in his
affidavit under Form-26 and in the nomination dated 7.2.2022. Further, the brick field
has not been disclosed and, as such, the first respondent failed to disclose the
source of income which he earns from the brick field. The election petitioner filed
the election petition on frivolous grounds without having verified the factual position.
12. Adding further, Mr. HS. Paonam, learned senior counsel submitted
that the election petitioner alleged that the first respondent has not disclosed
immovable properties belonging to him and his dependents. The aforesaid
statement does not constitute the ingredients of any corrupt practice. The properties
were already transferred and the first respondent has filed the affidavit and
nomination accordingly and it does not constitute any concealment of property. The
election petitioner agitated the nomination of the first respondent before the
Returning Officer by lodging complaints and said complaints were rejected by the
Returning Officer and the election petitioner failed to challenge the said rejection
order.
13. Mr. HS. Paonam, learned senior counsel further submitted that by
making inconsistent plea, the election petitioner approached this Court with unclean
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 6
7
hands and that the election petitioner fails to make out any material effect of the
alleged impropriety on election result. While alleging material facts, material
particulars should also be set out by which the result of the election has been
compromised and it must specifically be pleaded how the alleged disclosure/non-
disclosure of particulars would have affected the votes secured by the first
respondent and the prejudice caused.
14. Arguing so, Mr. HS. Paonam, learned senior counsel for the first
respondent submitted that the election petitioner has not complied with the provision
of Section 83(1) (a) & (b) of the Representation of People Act and, as such, the
election petition deserves to be rejected for non-disclosure of cause of action and
inconformity with the provisions of the Representation of People Act. Moreover, the
election petition is ill-conceived one and since the election petitioner approached this
Court with unclean hands, the election petition is liable to be dismissed at the
threshold. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the first respondent
relied upon the following decisions:
(i) Ram Sukh v. Dinesh Aggarwal, (2009) 10 SCC 541.
(ii) ManganiLalMandal v. BishnuDeo Bhandari, (2012) 3
SCC 314.
(iii) AnangaUday Singh Deo v. RangaNath Mishra and
others, (2002) 1 SCC 499.
(iv) Jaipal Singh v. Sumitra Mahajan and another, (2004)
4 SCC 522.
(v) IshwardasRohani v. Alok Mishra and others, (2012) 7
SCC 309.
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 7
8
(vi) Order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated
26.9.2019 in Civil Miscellaneous No.8 of 2018 in
Execution Petition No.1 of 2017.
(vii) Order of the Allahabad High Court dated 12.9.2022
in Election Petition No.10 of 2017.
(viii) Order of the Madras High Court dated 17.3.2022 in
O.A.No.764 of 2021 in Election Petition No.8 of
2021.
15. Per contra, Mr. HS. Paonam, learned senior counsel for the election
petitioner submitted that the M.C.(El. Pet.) No.7 of 2022 is filed without any basis
and that there is a cause of action for filing the election petition. The material facts,
which constitute the cause of action for filing the election petition, have been clearly
averred in the election petition. In fact, the election petitioner in his election petition
categorically stated that the non-disclosure of information or incomplete information
while filing the nomination paper along with Form-26 in respect of the election in
question amounts to corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Representation of
People Act.
16. Mr. HS. Paonam, learned senior counsel would submit that the first
respondent himself admitted that he had filed false affidavits qua educational
qualification, father's name and his age in the past elections while filing the
nominations and also he has mentioned false educational qualification in the
election in question. According to the learned counsel, filing false affidavit on oath
amounts to perjury and is liable to be prosecuted under the relevant law and the
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 8
9
same also amounts to undue influence to the voters which attracts corrupt practices
under Section 123 of the Representation of People Act.
17. Mr. HS. Paonam, learned senior counsel further submitted that the
amount of Rs.42,53,095.23 found in his spouse account as on 31.1.2022 and the
source of income has not been disclosed and, as such, the non-disclosure of the
particulars while filing nomination by the first respondent amounts to non-compliance
of Section 100(d)(iv) of the Representation of People Act and it also constitutes
corrupt practice. The brick field in question belongs to the first respondent and he
has intentionally failed to disclose the said brick field in the nomination form.
18. The learned senior counsel for the election petitioner submitted that
though the first respondent made a statement that the properties have been
transferred but have not mentioned about the details to whom the properties have
been transferred, the said non-disclosure of the properties while filing the nomination
paper along with Form-26 affidavit amounts to undue influence. In fact, all the
materials particulars about the non-disclosure and how the same has affected the
voters have been clearly mentioned by the election petitioner in the election petition.
Further, all the provisions of the Representation of People Act have been complied
with while filing the election petition and that the election petition is not ill-conceived
as alleged by the first respondent. Thus, a prayer has been made to dismiss the
miscellaneous case.
19. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the
materials available on record.
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 9
10
20. The grievance of the first respondent is that the election petition is
liable to be rejected on the ground that it does not disclose the cause of action in
terms of the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as the
provisions of the Representation of People Act.
21. On the other hand, the election petitioner contends that the cause of
action for filing the election petition has been substantially disclosed in the election
petition and he has categorically stated that non-disclosure of information or income
information while filing the nomination paper along with Form-26 affidavit amounts to
corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Representation of People Act as held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments.
22. The first respondent has filed M.C.(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 under Order
7, Rule 11(a) of CPC praying for rejection of the Election Petition No.3 of 2022. The
election petitioner assails the election of the first respondentfrom 17-Lamsang
Assembly Constituency in the 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly Election, 2022 on
the ground of improper acceptance of the nomination of the first respondent by the
Returning Officer, inasmuch as the first respondent has also filed a false affidavit
filed under Form-26 on 7.2.2022 thereby wrongly stating his highest educational
qualification as B.A. passed in the year 1988 from the Manipur University and also
for not disclosing the details of the brick field namely M/s.SR Construction Materials
located at Thaoroijam Maning Leikai covered by C.S. Dag No.306, Patta No.106/203
belonging to the first respondent so also immovable properties belonging to him and
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 10
11
his dependents and the source of income of himself and his wife at the time of filing
the nomination paper and the affidavit under Form-26.
23. According to the election petitioner, by dint of the improper acceptance
of the nomination by the Returning Officer despite vehement protest from the side of
the election petitioner and the non-compliance of the provisions of applicable laws
by the first respondent at the time of filing of nomination, the election of the first
respondent from 17-Lamsang Legislative Assembly Constituency is to be declared
as void.
24. Resisting the election petition, the first respondent has filed written
statement, inter alia, stating that the material facts pleaded by the election petitioner
in the election petition are frivolous and concocted, and only mentioning the word
materially affected is not sufficient but also extent and manner of the effect should
also be pleaded. The election petitioner cannot establish or make out any illegality
or impropriety in the nomination paper filed in connection with the election of 2022,
nor there is any non-disclosure of information relating to source of income and
assets of the first respondent or his dependents or spouse. The election petitioner
cannot allege any allegation over improper acceptance of nomination of the first
respondent as a ground in the election petition as the same happened prior to the
declaration of the result of election on 10.3.2022.
25. Placing reliance upon the decisions cited supra, Mr. HS. Paonam,
learned senior counsel for the first respondent argued that an election petition is
based on the rights, which are purely the creature of a statute, and if the statute
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 11
12
renders any particular requirement mandatory, the Court cannot exercise dispensing
powers to waive non-compliance and for the purpose of considering a preliminary
objection as to the maintainability of the election petition, the averments in the
election petition should be assumed to be true and the Court has to find out whether
these averments disclose a cause of action or a triable issue as such; that all
material facts, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of the Representation of
People Act have to be set out in the election petition. If the material facts are not
stated in the election petition, it is liable to be dismissed on that ground as the case
would be covered by Section 83(1)(a) (b) of the Representation of People Act read
with Order 7, Rule 11(a) of CPC and that the election petition can be summarily
dismissed, if it does not furnish the cause of action in exercise of the power under
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
26. In Ram Sukh, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"9. In this backdrop, we may now turn to the procedural
provisions in the Act insofar as they are relevant for our purpose:
―81. Presentation of petitions.--(1) An election petition calling
in question any election may be presented on one or more of the
grounds specified in sub-section (1) of Section 100 and Section
101 to the High Court by any candidate at such election or any
elector within forty-five days from, but not earlier than the date of
election of the returned candidate or if there are more than one
returned candidates at the election and the dates of their election
are different, the later of those two dates.
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 12
13
Explanation.--In this sub-section, ‗elector' means a person
who was entitled to vote at the election to which the election
petition relates, whether he has voted at such election or not.
***
(3) Every election petition shall be accompanied by as many
copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the
petition, and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner
under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition.
***
83. Contents of petition.--(1) An election petition--
(a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on
which the petitioner relies;
(b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that
the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of
the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt
practice and the date and place of the commission of each such
practice; and
(c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner
laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the
verification of pleadings:
Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt
practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in
the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt
practice and the particulars thereof.
(2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be
signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the
petition.
***
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 13
86. Trial of election petitions.--(1) The High Court shall
dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the
provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117.
Explanation.--An order of the High Court dismissing an
election petition under this sub-section shall be deemed to be an
order made under clause (a) of Section 98.
(2) As soon as may be after an election petition has been
presented to the High Court, it shall be referred to the Judge or
one of the Judges who has or have been assigned by the Chief
Justice for the trial of election petitions under sub-section (2) of
Section 80-A.
(3) Where more election petitions than one are presented to
the High Court in respect of the same election, all of them shall
be referred for trial to the same Judge who may, in his discretion,
try them separately or in one or more groups.
(4) Any candidate not already a respondent shall, upon
application made by him to the High Court within fourteen days
from the date of commencement of the trial and subject to any
order as to security for costs which may be made by the High
Court, be entitled to be joined as a respondent.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section and of
Section 97, the trial of a petition shall be deemed to commence
on the date fixed for the respondents to appear before the High
Court and answer the claim or claims made in the petition.
(5) The High Court may, upon such terms as to costs and
otherwise as it may deem fit, allow the particulars of any corrupt
practice alleged in the petition to be amended or amplified in
such manner as may in its opinion be necessary for ensuring a
fair and effective trial of the petition, but shall not allow any
amendment of the petition which will have the effect of
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 14
introducing particulars of a corrupt practice not previously
alleged in the petition.
(6) The trial of an election petition shall, so far as is
practicable consistently with the interests of justice in respect of
the trial, be continued from day to day until its conclusion, unless
the High Court finds the adjournment of the trial beyond the
following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded.
(7) Every election petition shall be tried as expeditiously as
possible and endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial
within six months from the date on which the election petition is
presented to the High Court for trial.
87. Procedure before the High Court.--(1) Subject to the
provisions of this Act and of any rules made thereunder, every
election petition shall be tried by the High Court, as nearly as
may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) to the trial of suits:
Provided that the High Court shall have the discretion to
refuse, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to examine any
witness or witnesses if it is of the opinion that the evidence of
such witness or witnesses is not material for the decision of the
petition or that the party tendering such witness or witnesses is
doing so on frivolous grounds or with a view to delay the
proceedings.
(2) The provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of
1872), shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be deemed to
apply in all respects to the trial of an election petition.‖
From the aforequoted provisions, it would appear that Section 81
enables a petitioner to call in question any election on one or
more of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of Section 100
of the Act.
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 15
.....
12. It is evident that the controversy in this appeal lies in a
narrow compass. It revolves around the ambit of Section 83 of
the Act. The point for consideration is whether the election
petition lacked ―material facts‖ required to be stated in the
election petition in terms of Section 83(1) of the Act and if so,
could it be dismissed summarily without trial? As already noted,
it is mandatory that all ―material facts‖ are set out in an election
petition and it is also trite that if material facts are not stated in
the petition, the same is liable to be dismissed on that ground
alone. Therefore, the question is as to whether the election
petitioner had set out ―material facts‖ in his petition?
....
18. Undoubtedly, by virtue of Section 87 of the Act, the
provisions of the Code apply to the trial of an election petition
and, therefore, in the absence of anything to the contrary in the
Act, the court trying an election petition can act in exercise of its
power under the Code, including Order 6 Rule 16 and Order 7
Rule 11 of the Code. The object of both the provisions is to
ensure that meaningless litigation, which is otherwise bound to
prove abortive, should not be permitted to occupy the judicial
time of the courts. If that is so in matters pertaining to ordinary
civil litigation, it must apply with greater vigour in election matters
where the pendency of an election petition is likely to inhibit the
elected representative of the people in the discharge of his public
duties for which the electorate have reposed confidence in him.
The submission, therefore, must fail."
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 16
27. In ManganiLalMandal, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"10. A reading of the above provision with Section 83 of
the 1951 Act leaves no manner of doubt that where a
returned candidate is alleged to be guilty of non-
compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or the
1951 Act or any rules or orders made thereunder and
his election is sought to be declared void on such
ground, it is essential for the election petitioner to aver
by pleading material facts that the result of the election
insofar as it concerned the returned candidate has been
materially affected by such breach or non-observance. If
the election petition goes to trial then the election
petitioner has also to prove the charge of breach or non-
compliance as well as establish that the result of the
election has been materially affected. It is only on the
basis of such pleading and proof that the Court may be
in a position to form opinion and record a finding that
breach or non-compliance with the provisions of the
Constitution or the 1951 Act or any rules or orders made
thereunder has materially affected the result of the
election before the election of the returned candidate
could be declared void."
28. In Ananga Uday Singh Deo, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"33. In a recent decision this Court in V. Narayanaswamy v. C.P.
Thirunavukkarasu [(2000) 2 SCC 294] after analysing the entire
case-law on the subject has held that exercise of undue
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 17
influence is also deemed to be a corrupt practice. Under sub-
section (2) of Section 123 ―undue influence‖ means any direct or
indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part of the
candidate or his agent, or of any other person with the consent of
the candidate or his election agent, with the free exercise of any
electoral right. ―Material facts‖ and ―material particulars‖ certainly
connote two different things. Material facts are those facts which
constitute the cause of action. In a petition based on the
allegation of corrupt practices the cause of action cannot be
equated with the cause of action as is normally understood
because of the consequences that follow in a petition based on
the allegations of corrupt practices. An election petition seeking a
challenge to the election of a candidate on the allegation of
corrupt practices is a serious matter; if proved, not only does the
candidate suffer ignominy, he also suffers disqualification from
standing for election for a period that may extend to six years.
34. The Court summed up:
―23. It will be thus seen that an election petition is based on
the rights, which are purely the creature of a statute, and if
the statute renders any particular requirement mandatory,
the court cannot exercise dispensing powers to waive non-
compliance. For the purpose of considering a preliminary
objection as to the maintainability of the election petition the
averments in the petition should be assumed to be true and
the court has to find out whether these averments disclose a
cause of action or a triable issue as such. Sections 81,
83(1)(c) and 86 read with Rule 94-A of the Rules and Form
25 are to be read conjointly as an integral scheme. When so
read if the court finds non-compliance it has to uphold the
preliminary objection and has no option except to dismiss the
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 18
petition. There is difference between ‗material facts' and
‗material particulars'. While the failure to plead material facts
is fatal to the election petition the absence of material
particulars can be cured at a later stage by an appropriate
amendment. ‗Material facts' mean the entire bundle of facts,
which would constitute a complete cause of action and these
must be concisely stated in the election petition, i.e., clause
(a) of sub-section (1) of Section 83. Then under clause (b) of
sub-section (1) of Section 83 the election petition must
contain full particulars of any corrupt practice. These
particulars are obviously different from material facts on
which the petition is founded. A petition levelling a charge of
corrupt practice is required by law to be supported by an
affidavit and the election petitioner is obliged to disclose his
source of information in respect of the commission of corrupt
practice. He must state which of the allegations are true to
his knowledge and which to his belief on information
received and believed by him to be true. It is not the form of
the affidavit but its substance that matters. To plead corrupt
practice as contemplated by law it has to be specifically
alleged that the corrupt practices were committed with the
consent of the candidate and that a particular electoral right
of a person was affected. It cannot be left to time, chance or
conjecture for the court to draw inference by adopting an
involved process of reasoning. Where the alleged corrupt
practice is open to two equal possible inferences the
pleadings of corrupt practice must fail. Where several
paragraphs of the election petition alleging corrupt practices
remain unaffirmed under the verification clause as well as
the affidavit, the unsworn allegation could have no legal
existence and the court could not take cognizance thereof.
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 19
Charge of corrupt practice being quasi-criminal in nature the
court must always insist on strict compliance with the
provisions of law. In such a case it is equally essential that
the particulars of the charge of allegations are clearly and
precisely stated in the petition. It is the violation of the
provisions of Section 81 of the Act which can attract the
application of the doctrine of substantial compliance. The
defect of the type provided in Section 83 of the Act on the
other hand can be dealt with under the doctrine of curability,
on the principles contained in the Code of Civil Procedure.
Non-compliance with the provisions of Section 83 may lead
to dismissal of the petition if the matter falls within the scope
of Order 6 Rule 16 and Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. Where neither the verification in the petition nor
the affidavit gives any indication of the sources of information
of the petitioner as to the facts stated in the petition which
are not to his knowledge and the petitioner persists that the
verification is correct and the affidavit in the form prescribed
does not suffer from any defect the allegations of corrupt
practices cannot be enquired and tried at all. In such a case
the petition has to be rejected on the threshold for non-
compliance with the mandatory provisions of law as to
pleadings. It is no part of the duty of the court suomotu even
to direct furnishing of better particulars when objection is
raised by the other side. Where the petition does not disclose
any cause of action it has to be rejected. The court, however,
cannot dissect the pleadings into several parts and consider
whether each one of them discloses a cause of action. The
petition has to be considered as a whole. There cannot be a
partial rejection of the petition.‖
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 20
29. In Jaipal Singh, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"7. Section 83 deals with contents of petition. It states that an
election petition shall contain a concise statement of material
facts, on which the petitioner relies and shall state full particulars
of any corrupt practices which the petitioner alleges and which
shall be signed by him and verified in the manner laid down in
the Code of Civil Procedure. In the case of SopanSukhdeo
Sable v. Asstt. Charity Commr. [(2004) 3 SCC 137 : (2004) 2
Scale 82] it has been held that Order 6 Rule 2(1) CPC deals with
basic rule of pleadings and declares that the pleading has to
state material facts and not the evidence; that there is a
distinction between ―material facts‖ and ―particulars‖ and the
words ―material facts‖ show that the facts necessary to formulate
a complete cause of action must be stated. Omission of single
material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and
consequently, the plaint becomes bad. The distinction between
―material facts‖ and ―particulars‖ was brought by Scott, L.J.
in Bruce v. Odhams Press Ltd. [(1936) 1 KB 697 : (1936) 1 All
ER 287 (CA)] in the following passage: (All ER p. 294)
―The cardinal provision in Rule 4 is that the statement of claim
must state the material facts. The word ‗material' means
necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of
action; and if any one ‗material' statement is omitted, the
statement of claim is bad; it is ‗demurrable' in the old
phraseology and in the new is liable to be ‗struck out' under RSC
Order 25 Rule 4 (see Philipps v. Philipps [(1878) 4 QBD 127 : 48
LJQB 135 : 39 LT 556 (CA)] ); or ‗a further and better statement
of claim' may be ordered under Rule 7.
The function of ‗particulars' under Rule 6 is quite different.
They are not to be used in order to fill material gaps in a
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 21
demurrable statement of claim -- gaps which ought to have
been filled by appropriate statements of the various material
facts which together constitute the plaintiff's cause of action. The
use of particulars is intended to meet a further and quite
separate requirement of pleading, imposed in fairness and
justice to the defendant. Their function is to fill in the picture of
the plaintiff's cause of action with information sufficiently detailed
to put the defendant on his guard as to the case he had to meet
and to enable him to prepare for trial.‖
.......
9. As to what is the material fact has to be decided in the present
case, in the context of the election petition under the said Act. An
election petition is a matter of statutory right. In the petition, the
key issue was whether the appellant held an office of profit on
the date of scrutiny. For that purpose, the appellant ought to
have stated that on 13-3-2002 he had requested for waiver of the
notice period; that the appointing authority had received the
notice on the specified date and that his request for waiver stood
granted on the date of scrutiny and he ceased to be a
government servant. These were the material facts which the
appellant should have pleaded so that the returned candidates
would not be taken by surprise. They were material facts within
his knowledge and ought to have been pleaded in the election
petition. Lastly, even the letter of the appellant seeking the
waiver of the notice period did not form part of the election
petition. Hence, the High Court was right in dismissing the
election petition for want of material facts."
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 22
30. In Civil Miscellaneous No.8 of 2018 in Election Petition No.1 of 2017,
dated 26.9.2019, supra, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held thus:
"20. For the aforesaid modified Form-26, it is thus seen that
certain additional particulars regarding sources of income of a
candidate with his spouse/dependents as also details pertaining
to his contracts with the Government or any Public Company or
Companies are now required to be furnished, although even
these particulars do not directly specify disclosure of any
outstanding liabilities of a Company, with which the candidate or
his/her spouse/dependents may be associated. Yet it may be
argued that the term 'Details of Contracts' would be large enough
to cover the same. But even in such eventuality, it is to be noted
this new requirement of declaration of contracts with the
Government or Public Company or Companies has been
introduced only after 10.10.2018, and was admittedly not in
existence at the time the Respondent was elected i.e. in March,
2017. By any stretch of imagination therefore, at this stage, he
cannot be penalized for not having disclosed any such
particulars, which were never required of him in the specific
Format, which he was obligated to do on affidavit at the relevant
time in 2017. Such an interpretation based on the principle of
'morality' so emphatically stressed on behalf of Petitioner in the
opinion of the Court is not called for, as the same would not only
have the effect of violating the basic canons of jurisprudence that
a person cannot be penalized retrospectively for not disclosure
of any particulars, which were never required to be disclosed at
the relevant time. Such a course would also have the effect of
overreaching the competent authorities i.e. Election Commission,
or the Central Government, who were otherwise authorized to
incorporate or modify Form-26 with the evolution of time.
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 23
21. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no tangible cause
of action for the Petitioner to challenge the Respondent's
election of 2017 on the alleged ground of non-disclosure of his
liabilities towards the Government or Public Institution, which
were actually liabilities of the Company/Companies, with which,
he was associated only in his capacity as Director and which he
was not obligated to disclose in accordance with specific Format
in force at the relevant time. Consequently, the Respondent's
Application under Order VI Rule 16 read with Order VII Rule 11
and Section 151 CPC is allowed and the Election Petition stands
dismissed.
31. In the order dated 12.9.2022 in Election Petition No.10 of 2017 cited by
the learned counsel for the first respondent, the Allahabad High Court held as under:
―34. .... In the case in hand, neither there is any such
incontrovertible and unimpeachable document, which could
show that the respondent did not hold the alleged degree in
Engineering/technology nor there are specific allegations that
how alleged incorrect and false statement of facts favourably
prejudiced the prospects of his election. Considering all these
facts of the matter, the inaccuracy or concealment regarding
educational qualification of the respondent did not amount to
unduly influencing the voters, as the defect in disclosure was not
of substantial character that could have materially prejudiced the
prospects of the election, for it to be termed as a corrupt practice
within the meaning of Section 123 of the Representation of
People Act.
....
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 24
36. After considering all relevant facts of the matter and the law
applicable thereto it clearly emerges that the averments
contained the election petition do not amount to any corrupt
practice and at the most the same relate to irregularities and
illegalities alleged to have been committed by the respondent,
which would at best be relevant if there was further allegation
that it materially affected the result of the election. The
averments contained in paras 32 to 38 and 40 containing
narration of facts about corrupt practice do not make out any
corrupt practice so as require any further adjudication on merits
of the matter. These allegations even if assumed to be true do
not make out any case of commission of corrupt practice as
enshrined in sub-section (2) or (4) of Section 123 of R.P. Act.
From the law laid down in case of Dhartipakar V. Rajiv Gandhi
(supra) it is clear that if the allegations made by the petitioner do
not amount to any corrupt practice as contemplated by Section
123 of the R.P. Act and the period for which the respondent was
elected is already over and fresh elections have taken place, the
petition could be dismissed.‖
32. It has been submitted on behalf of the election petitioner that the first
respondent has filed false affidavits of his educational qualifications, father's name
and his age in the past elections while filing his nomination papers and also in the
election in question, the first respondent has stated false educational qualification in
Form-26. Learned counsel for the election petitioner demonstrates the educational
qualifications of the first respondent as mentioned in the past elections as well as in
the election in question as under:
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 25
(i) In the 9th Manipur Legislative Assembly Election, 2007, it
has been mentioned as "B.A. passed from Manipur
University in the year 1985".
(ii) In the 10th Manipur Legislative Assembly Election, 1992, it
has been mentioned as "B.A. passed from Manipur
University in the year 1992".
(iii) In the 11th Manipur Legislative Assembly Election, 2017, it
has been mentioned as "B.A. passed from Manipur
University in the year 1992".
(iv) In the 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly Election, 2022, it
has been mentioned as "B.A. passed from Y.K. College,
Wangjing under Manipur University in the year 1988".
33. It is submitted on behalf of the election petitioner that the first
respondent mentioned his father's name in the 9th and 10th Manipur Legislative
Assembly Elections held in the year 2007 and 2012 as "S.Nilla Singh", whereas in
the 11th and 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly Elections, it has been mentioned as
"Sorokhaibam Yaimabi Singh". Similarly, the case of the election petitioner is that
different age has been mentioned during 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th Manipur Legislative
Assembly Elections, 2007, 2012, 2017 and 2022 respectively.
34. Mr. HS. Paonam, learned senior counsel for the election petitioner
pointed out that the first respondent has mentioned in his affidavit under Form-26
while filing his nomination paper that his spouse's closing balance at the Bank of
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 26
Baroda Savings Bank Account is Rs.42,53,095.23 as on 31.01.2022 and the
absence of filing of income tax return as indicated in paragraph 4 of the affidavit in
Form-26 by his spouse goes to show that his wife is having undisclosed source of
income and the vague disclosure of income of his wife being a Manager of the Brick
Field is not sufficient when Rs.42,53,095.23 is found in her account as on 31.1.2022.
35. According to Mr. HS. Paonam, learned senior counsel for the election
petitioner, the first respondent has mentioned that his other source of income and as
that of his wife is from land compensation. However, no detailed particulars have
been given by the first respondent in his affidavit in Form-26. According to the
learned counsel, the factum of the first respondent being the Proprietor of the Brick
Field namely M/s.SR Construction Materials has not been properly disclosed in the
affidavit in Form-26.
36. Similarly, it is the contention of the election petitioner that the first
respondent has not disclosed the immovable properties belonging to him and his
dependents in the affidavit in Form-26 while filing the nomination paper on 7.2.2022
and the particulars of which have been stated as under:
(i)The property under Patta No.175/547 (new) covered by C.S.
Dag No.1031/1361 measuring an area of 0.22663 hectare and
under Patta No.316 (old) 227/587 (new) covered by C.S. Dag
No.1219/1377 measuring an area of 0.2593 hectare situated at
No.76 Salam Keikhu - owned by the first respondent.
(ii)The property under Patta No.76 (old), 147/421 (new) covered
by C.S. Dag No.34/414 measuring an area of 0.06475 hectare
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 27
and under Patta No.338/550 (new) covered by C.S. Dag
No.1032/1364 measuring an area of 0.23675 hectare situated at
No.76, Salam Keikhu - in the name of dependent
SorokhaibamJayananda Singh, son of the first respondent.
(iii)The property under Patta No.194 (old) 121/471 (new) covered
by C.S. Dag No.2/379 measuring an area of 1.3314 hectare
situated at No.76, Salam Keikhu in the name of dependent No.2.
(iv)The property under Parra 142 (old) 286/673 (old), 121/471
(new) covered by C.S. Dag No.1092/1414 measuring an area
0.18818 hectare situated at No.76, Salam Keikhu in the name of
dependent No.3.‖
37. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the election
petitioner that the first respondent has failed to disclose particular plot of land
recorded in his name covered by C.S. Dag No.1009 under Patta No.281 situated at
No.76, Salam Keikhu, Sub Division Lamsang, Tehsil Salam, Imphal West District in
the nomination paper. The aforesaid non-disclosure of the said land is in violation of
the provisions of the Act/Rules and, the Returning Officer ought to have rejected the
nomination paper of the first respondent.
38. At this juncture, it is apposite to mention that the right to get information
in democracy is recognized all throughout and it is a natural right flowing from the
concept of democracy. Article 19(1) and (2) of the International Covenant of Civil
and Political Rights states as under:
―(1) Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without
interference.
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 28
(2) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this
right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either
orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other
media of his choice.‖
39. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India provides for freedom of
speech and expression. Voters' speech or expression in case of election would
include casting of votes, that is to say, voter speaks out or expresses by casting
vote. For this purpose, information about the candidate to be selected is must.
Voter's right to know antecedents, including criminal past of the candidate contesting
election for MP or MLA, is much more fundamental and basic for survival of
democracy. The voter may think over before making his choice of electing law
breakers as law makers.
40. In Samant N.Balkrishna and another v. V.George Fernandez and
others, (1969) 3 SCC 238, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the election petition
must set out the material facts on which a charge can be made and mere repetition
of the words of the statute does not amount to proper statement of facts. The
material facts must be stated in the petition and if they are missing, it is impossible
to think that the charge has been made or can be later amplified.
41. In D.Ramachandran v. R.V.Janakiraman and others, (1999) 3 SCC
267, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that distinction is to be made between the
terms "full particulars" and "material facts", however Court cannot dissect the
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 29
pleadings and strike off portion of it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that if
it was otherwise found that the facts and cause of action disclosed in the petition
were sufficient regarding the averments of the case and were sufficient to void the
election in case, then it could not be said that full particulars were not mentioned in
the election petition.
42. In Ponnala Lakshmaiah v. Kommuri Pratap Reddy and others, (2012) 7
SCC 788, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Courts are competent to dismiss
petitions not only on the ground that the same do not comply with provisions of
Sections 81, 82 and 117 of the Representation of the People Act, but also on the
ground that the same do not disclose any cause of action. The expression "cause of
action" has not been defined either in the Code of Civil Procedure or elsewhere and
is more easily understood than precisely defined.
43. In Kisan Shankar Kathore v. Arun Dattatray Sawant and others, (2014)
14 SCC 162, the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon the decision in the case of
Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms and another (2002) 5 SCC
294, wherein it has been held that it was incumbent upon every candidate, who is
contesting the election, to give information about his assets and other affairs, which
requirement is not only essential part of fair and free elections, inasmuch as, every
voter has a right to know about these details of the candidates, such a requirement
is also covered by freedom of speech granted under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India.
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 30
44. In Ashraf Kokkur v. K.V.Abdul Khader, (2015) 1 SCC 129, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the election petition having disclosed a cause of action
should not have been thrown out at the threshold.
45. Whether the allegation leveled by the election petitioner are correct or
not has to be proved by the election petitioner and further, as to whether, filing of the
affidavit in Form-26 by the returned candidate was false or not and whether the
alleged false affidavit would amount to violation of the provisions of Section 33 of the
Representation of People Act so as to render the election of the first respondent void
are to be considered by the Court in course of trial.
46. On a thorough reading of the instant election petition, it cannot be said
that the same does not contain a concise statement of material facts. In fact, it does
disclose a cause of action. Whether or not the said allegations would be proved is a
matter of evidence which can be considered only at the time of trial.
47. Indeed, the first respondent has failed to produce any materials to
disregard the arguments of the learned counsel for the election petitioner. The first
respondent simply stated that the election petitioner has failed to disclose the cause
of action against the first respondent in terms of the provisions of the Representation
of People Act and the Code of Civil Procedure and nothing more.
48. When this Court read over the averments set out in the election petition
wholly, it is clear that the election petitioner has stated full and material particulars
following the cause of action for filing the election petition. Prima facie, the election
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 31
petitioner has narrated in the election petition qua the non-disclosure of information
and/or incomplete information while filing the nomination paper along with Form-26
affidavit by the first respondent.
49. It is settled that so long as the claim discloses some cause of action or
raises some questions fit to be decided by a Judge, the mere fact that the case is
weak and not likely to succeed is no ground for striking it out. The implications of
the liability of the pleadings to be struck out on the ground that it discloses no
reasonable cause of action are generally more known than clearly understood. The
failure of the pleadings to disclose a reasonable cause of action is distinct from the
absence of full particulars.
50. In Harishankar Jain v. Sonia Gandhi, (2001) 8 SCC 233, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the expression "cause of action" would mean facts to be
proved, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court and
that the function of the party is to present a full picture of the cause of action with
such further information so as to make opposite party understand the case he will
have to meet. In paragraph 23, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
―23. Section 83(1)(a) of RPA, 1951 mandates that an election
petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on
which the petitioner relies. By a series of decisions of this Court, it
is well settled that the material facts required to be stated are those
facts which can be considered as materials supporting the
allegations made. In other words, they must be such facts as 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, 1908. The expression "cause of action" has been
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 32
compendiously defined to mean every fact which it would be
necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support
his right to the judgment of court. Omission of a single material fact
leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of claim
becomes bad. The function of the party is to present as full a
picture of the cause of action with such further information in detail
as to make the opposite party understand the case he will have to
meet. (Samant N. Balkrishna v. George Fernandez,
JitendraBahadur Singh v. Krishna Behari. Merely quoting the words
of the section like chanting of a mantra does not amount to stating
material facts. Material facts would include positive statement of
facts as also positive averment of a negative fact, if necessary. In
V. S. Achuthanandan v. P. J. Francis this Court has held, on a
conspectus of a series of decisions of this Court, that material facts
are such preliminary facts which must be proved at the trial by a
party to establish existence of a cause of action. Failure to plead
"material facts" is fatal to the election petition and no amendment of
the pleadings is permissible to introduce such material facts after
the time-limit prescribed for filing the election petition.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. To enable a court to reject a plaint on the ground
that it does not disclose a cause of action, it should look at the
plaint and nothing else. Courts have always frowned upon vague
pleadings which leave a wide scope to adduce any evidence. No
amount of evidence can cure basic defect in the pleadings.‖
(Underlying added)
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 33
51. In Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and others v. Owners and Parties, Vessel M.V.
Fortune Express and others, (2006) 6 SCC 100, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
under:
―12. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the plaint cannot be
rejected on the basis of the allegations made by the defendant in
his written statement or in an application for rejection of the plaint.
The Court has to read the entire plaint as a whole to find out
whether it discloses a cause of action and if it does, then the plaint
cannot be rejected by the Court exercising the powers under Order
VII Rule 11 of the Code. Essentially, whether the plaint discloses a
cause of action, is a question of fact which has to be gathered on
the basis of the averments made in the plaint in its entirety taking
those averments to be correct. A cause of action is a bundle of
facts which are required to be proved for obtaining relief and for the
said purpose, the material facts are required to be stated but not
the evidence except in certain cases where the pleadings relied on
are in regard to misrepresentation, fraud, wilful default, undue
influence or of the same nature. So long as the plaint discloses
some cause of action which requires determination by the court,
mere fact that in the opinion of the Judge the plaintiff may not
succeed cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint. In the
present case, the averments made in the plaint, as has been
noticed by us, do disclose the cause of action and, therefore, the
High Court has rightly said that the powers under Order VII Rule 11
of the Code cannot be exercised for rejection of the suit filed by the
plaintiff-appellants. Similarly, the Court could not have taken the aid
of Section 10 of the Code for stay of the suit as there is no
previously instituted suit pending in a competent court between the
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 34
parties raising directly and substantially the same issues as raised
in the present suit.‖
(Underlining added)
52. In construing a plea in any pleading, Courts must keep in mind that a
plea is not an expression of art and science, but an expression through words to
place fact and law of one's case for a relief. Such an expression may be pointed,
precise, sometimes vague but still it could be gathered what he wants to convey
through only by reading the whole pleading, depending on the person drafting a
plea.
53. When this Court carefully examined the decisions in the cases of
Harishankar Jain and Mayar (H.K.) Ltd, supra, it is clear that the Courts need to be
cautious in dealing with requests for dismissal of the election petition at the
threshold and exercise their powers of dismissal only in cases where even on a plain
reading of the election petition no cause of action is disclosed. In the case on hand,
the election petition establishes the cause of action.
54. An election which is vitiated by reason of corrupt practices, illegalities
and irregularities enumerated in Sections 100 and 123 of the Representation of
People Act cannot obviously be recognized and respected as the decision of the
majority of the electorate. The Courts are, therefore, duty bound to examine the
allegations whenever the same are raised within the framework of the statute
without being unduly hyper-technical in their approach and without being oblivious of
the ground realities.
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 35
55. The result of the election can be questioned on the grounds
enumerated in Section 100 of the Representation of People Act. Section 100(1)(b)
and 100(1)(d)(i), (ii) and (iv) of the Representation of People Act, provides:
―100. Grounds for declaring election to be void.--
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the High Court is
of opinion--
(a).......
(b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned
candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the
consent of a returned candidate or his election agent; or
(c) ......
(d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned
candidate, has been materially affected--
(i) by the improper acceptance or any nomination, or
(ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the
returned candidate by an agent other than his election agent,
or
(iii) ......
(iv) by any non--compliance with the provisions of the
Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made
under this Act.‖
56. As stated supra, the election petition must set out the material facts on
the basis of which the charge can be made and in the event of the material facts not
being stated in the election petition, the same is liable to be dismissed. The
expression material facts would mean all the basic facts constituting the ingredients
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 36
of the particular corrupt practice which the election petitioner is bound to
substantiate before he can succeed on that charge.
57. Whether in election petition, a particular fact is material or not, and as
such required to be pleaded is a question which depends on the nature of the
charge leveled, the ground relied upon and the special circumstances of the case.
All those facts which are essential to clothe the election petitioner with a complete
cause of action are material facts which must be pleaded and failure to plead even a
single material fact amounts to disobedience of the mandate of Section 83(1)(a) of
the Representation of People Act.
58. The object and purpose of pleading material facts is to enable the
opposite party to know the case he has to meet and in the absence of such a
pleading, a party cannot be allowed to lead evidence. The requirement under
Section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of People Act in contradiction to Section
83(1)(b) of the Representation of People Act is that the election petition needs to
contain only a concise statement of the material facts and not material particulars.
For the purpose of considering a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the
election petition, the averments in the election petition should be assumed to be true
and the Court has to find out whether these averments disclose a cause of action or
a triable issue as such. However, the Court cannot dissect the pleadings into
several parts and consider whether each one of them discloses a cause of action.
59. As stated supra, the election petitioner assails the election of the first
respondent under Sections 80, 80-A, 81, 84, 100(1)(d)(i) & 101 of the
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 37
Representation of People Act. After going through the averments made in the
election petition as a whole, it cannot be said that the election petition does not
contain a concise statement of material facts. In fact, prima facie, it does disclose a
cause of action.
60. The argument of the learned counsel for the first respondent that the
election petition has no cause of action has no merit. This Court is of the
considered view that the election petition having disclosed a cause of action, it
should not be thrown out at the threshold. That apart, when there are allegations of
corrupt practices alleged in the election petition, the Court is bound to examine the
same.
61. The cause of action is a bundle of facts which taken with the law
applicable gives the election petitioner a right to relief against the returned
candidate. Every fact and bundle of facts together constitutes a question of fact
which is required to be proved for the relief.
62. It is well settled that our election law being statutory in character must
be strictly complied with since an election petition is not guided by ever changing
common law principles of justice and notions of equity. Being statutory in character,
it is essential that it must conform to the requirements of our election law. But at the
same time the purity of election process must be maintained at all costs and those
who violate the statutory norms must suffer for such violation. If the returned
candidate is shown to have secured his success at the election by corrupt means he
must suffer for his misdeeds.
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 38
63. It is reiterated that the instant election petition as such does disclose a
cause of action which if unrebutted could void the election and the provisions of
Order 7, Rule 11 CPC cannot therefore be invoked in the present case. There is no
substance in the contention that some of the allegations are bereft of material facts
and, as such, do not disclose a cause of action. It is elementary that under Order 7,
Rule 11(a) CPC, the Court cannot dissect the pleading into several parts and
consider whether each of them discloses a cause of action. Further, the contention
of the first respondent that the election petitioner approached this Court with unclean
hands is not supported by any materials.
64. At this stage, this Court is not considering the issues - whether the first
respondent filed false affidavit at the time of filing his nomination and has failed to
disclose the true and correct facts, thereby violated the provisions of Section
100(1)(d)(i)& (iv) of the Representation of People Act and whether the Returning
Officer has correctly or wrongly accepted the nomination of the first respondent and
there was violation of Section 33 of the Representation of PeopleAct or not. These
are all the matter of trial. Thus, this Court is of the view that there had been
substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 83(1)(a) of the Representation
of People Act. Moreover, the question as to whether the pleadings made by the
election petitioner in the election petition are sufficient or not can only be determined
at the time of final hearing of the election petition. Since the election petition
discloses cause of action and the election petition needs to be tried, the present
miscellaneous case is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 39
65. In the result, MC (El. Pet.) No.7 of 2022 is dismissed. There will be no
order as to costs.
NR/NFR ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Ab. Surjit
MC(El. Petn.) No.7 of 2022 Page 40
