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 1st 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 27th 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,...

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

Parina Katyal

Tags