CAUSE TITLE:
Senthilbalaji V. versus A.P. Geetha & Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
19 May 2023.
JUDGE:
Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka
PARTIES:
Appellant- Senthilbalaji V
Respondent: A.P. Geetha & Ors
SUBJECT:
These appeals arose out of an election dispute regarding the election validity of the election in 134 - Aravakurichi Assembly Constituency (hereinafter referred to as “the said Constituency”). The court adjudged the requirement of clearly stating the cause of action like material particulars of the corrupt practices in the election petition.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
Representation of the People Act 1951
83. Contents of petition.—(1) An election petition—
(a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies;
(b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice; and
(c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings:
Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof.
(2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition.
123. Corrupt practices.—The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of
this Act:—
(1) “Bribery” that is to say—
(A) any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of any gratification, to any person whomsoever, with the object, directly or indirectly of inducing—
(a) a person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw] from being a candidate at an election, or
(b) an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election, or as a reward to—
(i) a person for having so stood or not stood, or for having withdrawn or not having withdrawn his candidature; or
(ii) an elector for having voted or refrained from voting;
(B) the receipt of, or agreement to receive, any gratification, whether as a motive or a reward—
(a) by a person for standing or not standing as, or for withdrawing or not withdrawing from being, a candidate; or
(b) by any person whomsoever for himself or any other person for voting or refraining from voting, or inducing or attempting to induce any elector to vote or refrain from voting, or any candidate to withdraw or not to withdraw his candidature.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause the term “gratification” is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or gratifications estimable in money and it includes all forms of entertainment and all forms of employment for reward but it does not include the payment of any expenses bona fide incurred at, or for the purpose of, any election and duly entered in the account of election expenses referred to in section 78.
(2) Undue influence, that is to say, any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part of the candidate or his agent, or of any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent, with the free exercise of any electoral right:
Provided that—
(a) without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of this clause any such person as is referred to therein who—
(i) thereatens any candidate or any elector, or any person in whom a candidate or an elector is interested, with injury of any kind including social ostracism and ex-communication or expulsion from any caste or community; or
(ii) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or an elector to believe that he, or any person in whom he is interested, will become or will be rendered an object of divine displeasure or spiritual censure,
BRIEF FACTS
- An election petition under section 81 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 was filed by the first respondent (before the SC) in the High Court of Madras. The appellant in the present appeal was the 5th respondent in the election petition filed by the first respondent.
- The ground of challenge to the election was the improper acceptance of nomination papers of the appellant and one other respondent along with the appellant’s indulgence in corrupt practices.
- The appellant herein made an application before the High Court inter-alia contending that no cause of action (material facts and particulars) has been stated in the election petition vis-à-vis the corrupt practices. The allegations regarding the corrupt practices were vague and ambiguous and deserve to be struck out as per Order VI Rule 16 along with a prayer to reject the election petition for non-disclosure of cause of action. A similar application was also filed by the 6th respondent.
- The High Court of Madras rejected the above-mentioned applications filed by the respondents before the HC.
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
- The appellants placed reliance on Section 83(1). Clause (b) of section 83(1) requires the petitioner to disclose full particulars of any corrupt practices including names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of commission of such practice. It was submitted that on the appellant’s application, the High Court directed the first respondent (Petitioner before the High Court) to file copies of email, photographs, and video recordings not included in the list of documents filed along with the Election Petition. It was contended that such a direction was per se illegal as the High Court could have either accepted or rejected the application.
- Reliance was also placed on various previous judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court like Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi1 (ii) M. Karunanidhi v. H.V. Hande & Ors.2 and (iii) Mulayam Singh Yadav v. Dharam Pal Yadav & Ors.
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
- The respondent first pointed out specific material facts about corrupt practices in the Petition.
- It was pointed out that the Petitioner relied on the representations made by her to various authorities in which specific details of corrupt practices have been set out.
ANALYSIS
- The Hon’ble Court analyzed the rival contentions and observed that the corrupt practice alleged has to be qua the election subject matter of challenge in the Election Petition. Corrupt practices have been listed in Section 123 of the RP Act.
- The Court analyzed section 83 of the Act which lists out the contents of the Petition vis-à-vis the averments in the Election Petition under challenge and held that in the election petition filed by the respondent, concise facts as to corrupt practices have not been pleaded in accordance with Section 83(1) of the Act.
- Court further observed that when corrupt practices are alleged, the proceedings become quasi-criminal. Hence, the returned candidate must have sufficient notice of what is alleged against him.
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in present case, the allegations were vague and ambiguous, hence, no cause of action arise to proceed on the ground of corrupt practices.
CONCLUSION
The court in view of the above-mentioned contentions and analyses concluded that as per judicial consensus, failure to mention material facts about corrupt practices such as date, time and manner is fatal for election petition. The Hon’ble Court allowed the appeal.
