The Supreme Court in its judgment dated 08.04.2024 dismissed the Election Petition being No. 1 of 2021 filed by the Respondent No. 1 and allowed the appeal accordingly. The Court observed that, pleadings have to be precise, specific and unambiguous in an Election Petition, and if the petition does not disclose a cause of action, it is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.
As per the facts of the case, the Election Commission of India (ECI) announced the General Election of the Assamese Legislative Assembly on 05.03.2021, with a deadline on 12.03.2021 for filing nomination. The appellant filed his nomination papers on 11.03.2021 along with Declaration, by way of an affidavit in Form-26 of The Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. 15.03.2021 was the deadline for nomination papers to be reviewed. Election was held in Sonai on 01.04.2021. Out of the total votes casted, the appellant received 71,937, while the respondent no. 1 received 52,283 votes in his favour.
Under Section 100(1)(b) and 100(1)(d)(i) of the RP Act, the respondent no.1 filed an Election Petition with the High Court on 04.06.2021. The petition questioned the appellant’s election and contained four primary allegations: (a) false declaration of educational qualification of B.A. (b) suppression of the educational qualification of Diploma in Engineering (c) suppression of bank loan details of M/s. Allied Concern and (d) suppression of un-liquidated provident fund dues. The High Court sent notice in the aforementioned Election Petition on 24.06.2021. The appellant submitted a request for the Election Petition to be rejected on 23.08.2021 in accordance with Order VII Rule 11, CPC as well as Section 86 of the RP Act. After the High Court in its judgment dismissed his application on 26.04.2023, the appellant approached the Apex Court.
Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kapil Sibal appearing for the appellant submitted that the respondent no.1 has challenged the election based on mere bald allegations that the information submitted in Form 26 is inaccurate. He argued that the petition is full of speculation and lacks evidence to support the claims of the respondent no.1 and also, why he didn’t raise any objections during the nomination process. Counsel further argued that the alleged inaccuracies don’t constitute “corrupt practices” under Section 123, for declaring the Election to be void under Section 100 of the RP Act and hence the election petition should be rejected.
Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jaideep Gupta argued that the appellant should be disqualified for two reasons: firstly, he lied about education, loans and provident fund contributions. Secondly, he failed to disclose required information as per the RP Act. Counsel also cited legal changes requiring specific disclosures and a court case where non-disclosure was considered “undue influence.” He argued that the election petition should not be rejected.
Before coming to the conclusion, Supreme court glanced over the relevant provisions in Part V of the RP Act that deals with the Conduct of Elections and Chapter-I that deals with the Nomination of Candidates.
The court noted that it is a well settled legal principle that right to contest election or to question the election by means of an Election Petition is a statutory right governed by the statutory provisions of the RP Act and neither a common law nor fundamental right. Outside which, there is no right to challenge an election.
The court stated that Election Petition will be dismissed at the threshold if the pleadings are not precise, specific and unambiguous and the petition does not disclose any valid cause of action. The court after reading the election petition concluded that respondent no. 1 has made only bald and vague allegations in it without stating the “material facts” in support thereof as required under Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act. The Court remarked that though the Election Petition does not require to state how corrupt practice had materially affected the result of the election but it is mandatory to state when the clause (d)(i) of Section 100(1) is invoked so as to prove the election was materially affected by improper acceptance of the nomination form of the appellant.
The Supreme Court held that election petitions will be rejected in accordance with Order VII Rule 11 read with Sections 83 and 87 of the RP Act if a single material fact is omitted that results in an incomplete cause of action or if a concise statement of material facts is omitted on which the petitioner relies to establish a cause of action. Accordingly, the court dismissed the election petition and dismissed the appeal.
Case Name: Karim Uddin Barbhuiya (Appellant) v. Aminul Haque Laskar & Ors. (Respondent), Civil Appeal No. 6282 of 2023.
NAME: SHUBHI SRIVASTAVA, COURSE: B.A.LL.B. (Hons.), COLLEGE: JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA, NEW DELHI, INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
