'Fatal Defect In Election Petition': Orissa High Court Dismisses Challenge To Union Minister Dharmendra Pradhan's 2024 Lok Sabha Win
The Orissa High Court has dismissed an election petition challenging the election of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan from Sambalpur Parliamentary Constituency in the Lok Sabha Election held in 2024.A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra found the election petition to be defective as it failed to specify the definite nature of alleged 'corrupt practice' against the BJP leader, nor...
The Orissa High Court has dismissed an election petition challenging the election of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan from Sambalpur Parliamentary Constituency in the Lok Sabha Election held in 2024.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra found the election petition to be defective as it failed to specify the definite nature of alleged 'corrupt practice' against the BJP leader, nor it annexed the relevant documents basing upon which such corrupt practice was sought to be established. In the words of the Court –
“In the absence of such specific averments made in the Election Petition/Plaint and documents to substantiate such stand, constituting a defined “Corrupt Practice” within the meaning of Section 123 of the R.P. Act, this Court is of further view that the Election Petitioner has failed to disclose any material facts regarding corrupt practice, to be tried by this Court.”
To put briefly, the election petitioner Dr. Subash Mohapatra, belonging to National Jan Dal (NJD), contested Parliamentary Election from the Sambalpur Lok Sabha constituency in the year 2024. However, he failed to secure the seat as BJP candidate Dharmendra Pradhan got the highest number of votes from the said constituency.
The election petitioner challenged the outcome of the election through a petition before the High Court under the Representation of People Act, 1951 ('the RP Act') basing upon alleged non-disclosure and incorrect information regarding assets, liabilities and criminal antecedents provided by Pradhan while filing nomination for election.
While the matter was sub judice, the Union Minister/respondent filed an interim application (IA) to strike out/delete certain pleadings, in exercise of power under Order VI Rule 16 CPC, made in the election petition and also to reject/dismiss the same in its entirety at the very threshold under Section 86 of the RP Act read with Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Two primary contentions were advanced on behalf of the respondent to challenge the maintainability of the election petition. Firstly, it was contended that the election petition has not been duly signed and verified by the election petitioner as required under Section 83(1)(c) of the RP Act read with Order VI Rule 15 of CPC and the affidavit appended to the petition has not been sworn before a Notary Public or Oath Commissioner resulting in violation of Section 81(3) of the RP Act.
Secondly, despite alleging commission of corrupt practice, the election petitioner failed to file the affidavit in Form-25 prescribed under the proviso to Section 83(1) read with Rule-94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. It was further submitted that he failed to disclose the names of the persons who have committed the alleged corrupt practice so also the date, place and time thereof.
Upon hearing the parties, the Court relied upon a number of authoritative pronouncements, including the judgment of Supreme Court in K. Babu v. M. Swaraj, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 111 to hold that even though the affidavit filed in support of the Election Petition does not strictly adhere to the format prescribed under Form 25 read with Rule 94A of the Rules, 1961, such defect, per se, would be a curable irregularity.
The Court then examined the contention vis-à-vis absence of pleading as to material facts disclosing 'corrupt practice'. It held that despite repeatedly alleging in the election petition that the returned candidate/respondent committed 'corrupt practice', it does not specifically identify the precise nature or category of such corrupt practice as enumerated under Section 123 of the RP Act. Accordingly, it held –
“In absence of such specific pleadings and material facts and full particulars constituting the alleged “corrupt practice”, it cannot be said to be amounting to substantial compliance with the statutory provisions enshrined under Section 83 of the R.P. Act governing the proper pleading of corrupt practices in an Election Petition.”
Justice Mishra relied upon Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 398 wherein the Apex Court had held that the failure to plead material facts is fatal to an election petition and no amendment of the pleading could be allowed to introduce such material facts after the time-limit prescribed for filing the election petition has elapsed.
Consequently, it was held that the omission on the part of the election petitioner to specifically plead and mention the precise nature of the alleged corrupt practice constitutes a fatal defect going to the root of the matter, which cannot be cured even by invoking the 'Doctrine of Substantial Compliance'.
Resultantly, the prayer made in the IA was allowed by rejecting the election petition under Order VII Rule 11, CPC.
Case Title: Dr. Subash Mohapatra v. Dharmendra Pradhan & Ors.
Case No: ELPET No. 30 of 2024
Date of Judgment: November 19, 2025
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Akshaya Kumar Subudhi, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. G.K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate Along with Ms. S. Srivastava, Advocate
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 154