Election Petition Cannot Be Rejected Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Merely Because Accompanying Affidavit Is Defective: Uttarakhand HC

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that the requirement to file an affidavit under the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is not mandatory and that it is sufficient if there is substantial compliance. Further, reiterating the principle established in various precedents, the Court held that a defect, if any in the affidavit filed with the election petition is curable and that an opportunity may be granted to file the necessary affidavit.The issue arose from an election petition filed by the respondent under Section 131 of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 challenging the election of the petitioner as Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Bhogpur, Block Laksar, District Haridwar. During the pendency of the election petition, the petitioner sought rejection of the petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the affidavit filed with the election petition was not as per Rule 94A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. The application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority/Sub-divisional Magistrate and the order was affirmed in revision, leading to the present writ petition.Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari was thus dealing with a writ petition challenging the orders dated 28.01.2026 and 15.05.2026 passed by the Prescribed Authority and the 1st Additional District Judge respectively.The petitioner contended that the election petition did not disclose any cause of action and that material particulars regarding the corrupt practices alleged to have been adopted during the election had not been indicated in the election petition.It was further submitted that since allegations of corrupt practice had been made in the election petition, the affidavit accompanying the petition was required to be in conformity with Rule 94A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. According to the petitioner, the affidavit filed by the election petitioner did not satisfy that requirement and, therefore, the election petition was liable to be rejected.The respondent submitted that the only ground taken in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was that the affidavit filed with the election petition was not in accordance with Rule 94A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. It was contended that there was no allegation in the application that material facts regarding corrupt practices had not been pleaded.The respondent further submitted that the election petition was accompanied by an affidavit and that the Supreme Court in Thangjam Arunkumar had held that the requirement to file an affidavit under the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is not mandatory and that substantial compliance is sufficient. According to the respondent, even if there was any defect in the affidavit, the defect was curable and the court could grant an opportunity to file the necessary affidavit.It was also submitted that evidence is not required to be pleaded and that the election petition had been filed in accordance with law.The Court first referred to the principles governing rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Referring to Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association and Eldeco Housing & Industries Ltd. v. Ashok Vidyarthi, the Court observed that “Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that rejecting a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code is a "drastic" & "extreme" power. Because it terminates a suit at the threshold without a full trial, courts are mandated to exercise the power with extreme caution and never in a routine or mechanical manner. The court must must read the plaint as a whole and assume all averments are true. The allegations must be examined clearly to see, if they disclose a valid right to sue. The court cannot go into disputed question of facts or look at the defence at this stage. When deciding, if the plaint is legally barred (e.g. 'barred by limitation'), court inquiry has to be confined to the averments made in the plaint and the contents of accompanying documents. Defendant's written statement or external evidence cannot be used to reject a plaint. If the issue requires an investigation into disputed facts, it becomes a mixed question of law and fact, and in such cases, plaint cannot be rejected summarily at the threshold”.The Court then considered the principal ground on which rejection of the election petition had been sought, namely that the affidavit filed with the election petition was not in conformity with Rule 94A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. Reliance was placed to the decision of the Supreme Court in Thangjam Arunkumar v. Yamkham Erabot Singh, wherein it was held that the requirement to file an affidavit under the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is not mandatory and that substantial compliance would suffice. The Court also referred to the decisions in G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar and A. Manju v. Prajwal Revanna etc,...

Election Petition Cannot Be Rejected Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Merely Because Accompanying Affidavit Is Defective: Uttarakhand HC

Preet Luthra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Preet Luthra

Election Petition Cannot Be Rejected Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Merely Because Accompanying Affidavit Is Defective: Uttarakhand HC

Preet Luthra

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Preet Luthra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers