Failure To Plead Material Facts Concerning Alleged Corrupt Practice Is Fatal To Election Petition: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ruled that failure to plead material facts concerning alleged corrupt practice is fatal to the election petition. The top court observed that when allegations of corrupt practice is made against an elected representative in an election petition, the proceedings virtually become quasi-criminal. Further, the outcome of such a petition is very serious, which can oust a popularly elected representative of the people. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirement of stating material facts concerning the ground of corrupt practice, must result in the rejection of the petition at the threshold itself.

The bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal was dealing with an appeal against the order of the Madras High Court who had set aside the application filed by the appellant seeking rejection of the Election Petition challenging its election in the Constituent Assembly election(Senthilbalaji V. vs A.P. Geetha & Ors).

The court observed that in the averments made in the Election Petition, the respondent had not pleaded even the bare particulars of any of the corrupt practices covered by Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Further, it had merely made a bald allegation of electoral misconduct, corrupt practice, and bribery on the part of the appellant.

While noting that Section 83(1) (a) of the Representation of the People Act mandates that an election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts, the bench held that the material facts, which according to the respondent constituted corrupt practice, were not pleaded in the Election Petition. Further, the allegations made in the petition were very vague and general in nature. Thus, there was no cause of action to proceed on the ground of corrupt practice. The bench, therefore, set aside the judgment of the Madras High Court and allowed the application filed by the appellant.

The 1^st respondent, A.P. Geetha, filed an Election Petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act) before the Madras High Court questioning the validity of the 2016 election of the Aravakurichi Assembly Constituency in Tamil Nadu, in which the appellant, Senthilbalaji V, was declared as elected. The respondent had claimed in its election petition that the election was void as the nomination of the appellant was improperly accepted. She further challenged the election on the ground that corrupt practices were committed by the appellant or by other persons with his consent.

Against this, the appellant filed an application before the Madras High Court for rejection of the Election Petition on the ground that the same did not disclose the cause of action. The appellant had further sought deletion of the paragraphs in the Election Petition containing vague allegations of corrupt practices against it. The said application was rejected by the Madras High Court, against which the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

The appellant, Senthilbalaji, submitted before the top court that material facts and particulars regarding the alleged corrupt practices on his part, were not found in the Election Petition. He submitted that on the basis of the application made by the appellant, the High Court had directed the respondent to file copies of emails, photographs, and video footage- which were previously submitted by the respondent to the Returning Officer- which were not filed by her along with the Election Petition. He pleaded that the said direction was per se illegal.

At the outset, the court remarked that Section 123 of the RP Act defines various corrupt practices for the purpose of the said Act. Naturally, the corrupt practice has to be qua the election which is the subject matter of challenge in the Election Petition.

Perusing the averments made in the Election Petition, the court said that the respondent had failed to plead how the appellant was disqualified from contesting the election. Noting that the election to the said Constituency was postponed in terms of the order dated 27^th May, 2016 passed by the Election Commission, the court said, “However, the first respondent has not pleaded that under a particular statutory provision, the appellant and 6th respondent were under an obligation to disclose the order dated 27th May 2016 passed by the Election Commission while filing nomination papers. It is not pleaded how on the ground of the failure to disclose the said order, the appellant and 6th respondent were disqualified from contesting the election. The disqualification must be based on a statutory provision. The first respondent has not pleaded that in law it was the obligation of the appellant to disclose in the nomination paper, the earlier order of the Election Commission by which the election was postponed. The existence of no such obligation is pleaded.”

The bench added: “Therefore, in our view, averments made in paragraphs nos. 4 and 5 of the Election Petition are unnecessary, thereby, attracting clause (a) of Rule 16 of Order VI of CPC. Under clause (a) of Rule 16 of Order VI of CPC, the Court has the power to strike out a pleading which is unnecessary.” The court remarked that not a single material fact was pleaded in the Election Petition in support of the plea that the acceptance of the appellant’s nomination paper was improper.

While dealing with the allegation of corrupt practices, the court observed that in the Election Petition, the respondent had not pleaded even the bare particulars of any of the corrupt practices covered by Section 123 of the RP Act. “What is the nature of corrupt practice is also not described except for making a bald allegation that in the representations mentioned in paragraph 6, the first respondent has set out electoral misconduct, corrupt practice, and bribery on the part of the appellant,” the court said.

The bench further observed that Section 83(1) (a) of the RP Act mandates that an election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts. It added that when the allegation is of corrupt practice, the basic facts constituting corrupt practice must be pleaded in order to comply with the said provision.

Referring to the pleadings made in the Election Petition, the court remarked that in the present case, such concise facts were not at all pleaded. “Basic facts cannot be pleaded only by stating that the same find place in the documents relied upon. The first respondent has merely stated that the contents of representations may be read as a part of the petition. This does not satisfy the requirement of incorporating a concise statement of material facts,” the court observed.

The court added: “Moreover, when the allegation is of corrupt practice, the proceedings virtually become quasi-criminal. Therefore, the elected candidate must get adequate notice of what is alleged against him. That is why material facts concerning the ground of corrupt practice must be pleaded. The outcome of such a petition is very serious. It can oust a popularly elected representative of the people.” Therefore, non-compliance with the requirement of stating material facts must result in the rejection of the petition at the threshold, the court concluded.

“The consensus of judicial opinion is that the failure to plead material facts concerning alleged corrupt practice is fatal to the election petition,” the court added.

Referring to the facts of the case the court said, “In the present case, taking the averments made in the petition as it is, not a single material fact is pleaded making out an allegation of corrupt practice covered by Section 123 of the RP Act of 1951. All that the first respondent has pleaded is that he made representations to the Returning Officer and other authorities complaining about the corrupt practice on the part of the appellant. What is the nature of the corrupt practice is not mentioned even in brief.” Thus, the court concluded that material facts, which according to the respondent constitute corrupt practice, were not pleaded in the Election Petition.

While noting that the requisite facts were completely missing in the Election Petition, the court said that the allegations made in petition were very vague and general in nature. Therefore, there was no cause of action to proceed on the ground of corrupt practice

The court further remarked that the High Court had no reason to direct the election petitioner/ respondent to file the documents, namely the emails, photographs, and video footage on record, while dismissing application filed by the appellant. “It was for the first respondent to seek permission to produce the documents. The first respondent never sought such permission. Even if the documents are produced, the same will be without any foundation in the pleadings. Therefore, it is very difficult to sustain the said direction as well,” the court said.

The court directed deletion of certain paragraphs in the Election Petition under Rule 16 Order VI of CPC, on the ground that they were irrelevant and did not disclose any material facts in relation to the allegations of corrupt practices. It further noted that the ground of improper acceptance of the nomination paper was no longer relevant as the term of the appellant had already expired. The court thus set aside the judgment of the High Court and allowed the application filed by the appellant.

“Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and allow the applications filed by the appellant for rejection of the petition and/or for deletion of irrelevant paragraphs. Election Petition No.1 of 2017 pending before the High Court of Judicature at Madras stands dismissed,” the court held.

Case Title: Senthilbalaji V. vs A.P. Geetha & Ors.

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 471

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, AOR Ms. Sonakshi Malhan, Adv. Mr. Sajal Jain, Adv.

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Adv. Mr. A. Lakshminarayanan, AOR Mr. Raghu, Adv. Mr. K.kathiresan, Adv. Mr. Devamshu Behl, Adv. Mr. Scv Vimal Pani, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, AOR Mr. Dipesh Sinha, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Barua, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Upadhyaya, Adv. Ms. Aparna Singh, Adv. Mrs. Deepa. S, Adv. Mr. Sheikh F Kalia, Adv. Ms. Divya Singh, Adv. Mr. D.Kumanan, AOR

Representation of the People Act, 1951: Sections 123, 83(1) (a)-

The Supreme Court has ruled that failure to plead material facts concerning alleged corrupt practice is fatal to the election petition. The top court observed that when allegations of corrupt practice is made against an elected representative in an election petition, the proceedings virtually become quasi-criminal. Further, the outcome of such a petition is very serious, which can oust a popularly elected representative of the people. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirement of stating material facts concerning the ground of corrupt practice, must result in the rejection of the petition at the threshold itself.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment