Site icon Legal Vidhiya

KARIM UDDIN BARBHUIYA VS. AMINUL HAQUE LASKAR & ORS.

Admin
Spread the love
CITATION2024 0 CJ(SC) 186
DATE OF JUDGMENT8th April 2024
COURTSupreme Court of India
APPELLANTKarim Uddin Barbhuiya
RESPONDENTAminul Haque Laskar & Ors
BENCHHon’ble Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Hon’ble Justice Aniruddha Bose
STATUTES REFERREDRepresentation of the Peoples Act, 1951, Section 123(2), 86,100(1)(d)(i),100(1)(b).Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VII Rule 11

INTRODUCTION

The Appeal is filed by the appellant – Karim Uddin Barbhuiya (Original Respondent No. 1). It is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 26.04.2023 passed by the Gauhati High Court at Guwahati in Election Petition No. 01 of 2021. 

FACTS OF THE CASE

  1. On 5th March 2021, the Election Commission of India notified the General Election to the Legislative Assembly of Assam, with the last date for filing nomination papers being 12th March 2021.
  2. On11th March 2021, the appellant filed his nomination papers as a candidate of All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF), which was accompanied by a Declaration in the form of an affidavit (Form-26 of The Conduct of Election Rules, 1961).
  3. The scrutiny of nomination papers took place as per the deadline of 15th March 2021.
  4. The election for Legislative Assembly Constituency no. 10, Sonai concluded on 1st April 2021, where the appellant secured 71,937 votes out of total votes polled, and respondent no. 1 secured 52,283 votes.
  5. On 4th April 2021, respondent no. 1 filed Election Petition no. 01 of 2021 before the Gauhati High Court, alleging false declaration of educational qualification, suppression of educational qualification, suppression of bank loan details, and suppression of un-liquidated provident fund dues.
  6. The High Court issued a notice in the Election Petition on 24th June 2021.
  7. On 23rd April 2021, the appellant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC read with Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act,1951, for rejection of the Election Petition, registered as I.A (Civil) No. 1278 of 2021 in the Election Petition. On 26th April 2023, the Gauhati High Court passed a judgment dismissing the application filed by the appellant.
  8. Consequently, the appellant filed the instant appeal against the above-said judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court.

ISSUES RAISED

  1. Is the Election Petition filed by respondent no. 1 before the High Court legally valid and did the appellant commit corrupt practices as alleged by respondent no. 1?
  2. Whether the allegations made by the respondent in the Election Petition regarding corrupt practices and improper acceptance of nomination were adequately supported by concise statements of material facts and specific particulars, as required by the Representation of the People Act?
  3. Was the nomination of the appellant improperly accepted, and did it materially affect the election outcome?
  4. Does the Election Petition comply with the legal requirements regarding concise statements of material facts and full particulars of alleged corrupt practices?
  5. Did respondent no. 1 raise objections to the appellant’s nomination during the scrutiny process, and were they properly addressed by the Returning Officer?
  6. Whether the failure of the petitioner to provide sufficient details in the Election Petition warrant its dismissal under relevant procedural rules?

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANTS

  1. The appellant’s counsel, Mr. Kapil Sibal, argued that the election petition filed by respondent no. 1 is baseless, motivated, and malafide. The allegations made in the petition are mere bald assertions without any substantial evidence.
  2. None of the allegations made in the Election Petition is supported by primary documents or reliable sources of information and the pleadings in the petition were described as speculative and failing to disclose any triable issue.
  3. Mr. Sibal contended that the Election Petition does not disclose a complete cause of action as required under Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act. He argued that the petition lacks “full particulars” of the alleged corrupt practice of undue influence, as mandated by Section 81(1)(b) of the RP Act.
  4. It was submitted that there was no suppression of educational qualification, bank loan details, or unliquidated provident fund dues by the appellant. Mr. Sibal referred to the particulars disclosed by the appellant in Form No. 26 to support this contention.
  5. The appellant’s counsel highlighted that respondent no. 1 did not raise any objection in writing at the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers by the Returning Officer. Therefore, it was argued that there was no improper acceptance of the appellant’s nomination.
  6. Mr. Sibal invoked various provisions contained in the RP Act, particularly Section 100 and Section 123, to argue that the allegations in the Election Petition do not constitute “undue influence” or “corrupt practices.” He cited precedent, specifically the case of Kanimozhi Karunanidhi Vs. A. Santhana Kumar and Others, to support the dismissal of the Election Petition under Order VII Rule 11, CPC read with Section 83 of the RP Act.

CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT

  1. Respondent’s counsel, Mr. Gupta argued that the nomination paper of the appellant was improperly accepted because the affidavit in Form-26 contained false statements regarding his educational qualification, liability in respect of the loan, and default in the deposit of employer’s contribution of provident fund as a partner of the Partnership firm.
  2. He further claimed that the appellant engaged in corrupt practices by failing to make the required disclosures as per the RP Act and judicial pronouncements.
  3. Mr. Gupta cited the decision in Lok Prahari vs. Union of India & Others to support his argument regarding non-disclosure amounting to “undue influence.”
  4. He cited the case of Krishnamoorthy vs. Sivakumar and Others, stating that under Section 100(1)(b), it’s not necessary to prove that the corrupt practice materially affected the election outcome.
  5. He submitted that there are several triable issues in the Election Petition, and the cause of action has been adequately disclosed. He further argued that the High Court rightly rejected the appellant’s application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, and such an order is just and legal, warranting no interference from the Court.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, dismissing the Election Petition. It found that the petitioner failed to provide concise statements of material facts and specific particulars regarding alleged corrupt practices and improper acceptance of the nomination, as required by sections of the Representation of the People Act. The judgment upheld the importance of precise and unambiguous pleadings in electoral disputes, citing legal precedent. Consequently, due to the petition’s incompleteness and failure to adhere to statutory provisions, it was deemed liable for dismissal under relevant procedural rules.

ANALYSIS

This case concerns the legal provisions and requirements governing election petitions under the Representation of the People Act (RP Act). Respondent no. 1 filed an Election Petition challenging the election of the appellant on two grounds: alleging corrupt practices and improper acceptance of the nomination, invoking Section 100(1)(b) and Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act. The petition contained various allegations, including false statements in the appellant’s educational qualifications and suppression of liabilities related to a partnership firm. However, the court observed that the petition lacked concise statements of material facts, as required by Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act.The allegations regarding corrupt practices were deemed vague and unsubstantiated, failing to meet the strict standard of proof required for such claims. The court highlighted the need for precise, specific, and unambiguous pleadings when alleging corrupt practices, citing legal precedent, Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi. Additionally, it highlighted the mandate required by Section 83(1)(b) to provide full particulars of the alleged corrupt practice, including names of parties and dates of commission. Regarding the grounds of improper acceptance of nomination under Section 100(1)(d)(i), the court noted the absence of specific averments on how the election result was materially affected by such improper acceptance. It emphasized the importance of stating these particulars in a detailed manner to establish a cause of action under the relevant section of the RP Act. Finally, the court concluded that the Election Petition failed to meet the legal requirements as per Sections 81, 83, and 100 of the RP Act. Due to the omission of material facts and lack of concise statements, the petition was deemed incomplete and liable for dismissal under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) read with Sections 83 and 87 of the RP Act. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the appeal in this case was allowed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court used the Sections and procedural requirements governing election petitions under the Representation of the People Act,1951. It highlighted the respondent’s failure to provide concise statements of material facts and specific particulars regarding alleged corrupt practices and improper acceptance of nomination, as mandated by the relevant sections of the Act. The court emphasized the need for precise, specific, and unambiguous pleadings in electoral disputes, citing landmark precedents. Ultimately, due to the petition’s incompleteness and lack of adherence to statutory provisions, it was deemed liable for dismissal under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Sections 83 and 87 of the RP Act. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, pronouncing the dismissal of the Election Petition.

REFERENCES

  1. https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/vague-allegations-supreme-court-dismisses-petition-challenging-2021-assam-assembly-election-of-aiudf-leader-barbhuiya-254640#:~:text=In%20a%20major%20relief%20to,challenging%20Barbhuiya’s%202021%20Assembly%20election
  2. https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/sonai-election-dispute-karim-uddin-barbhuiya-vs-aminul-haque-laskar/
  3. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/18663/18663_2023_5_1501_52196_Judgement_08-Apr-2024.pdf

This Article is written by Purbasha Parui, student of BMS College of Law, Bangalore, 1st Sem B.A. LL.B ; Intern at 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.

PDF 📄
Exit mobile version