Summary
In an election petition about the May 2019 election, the Telangana High Court pronounced on 15.06.2022 only the result of the returned candidate's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, rejecting the petition. More than three months later, no reasoned order had been supplied, uploaded or issued in certified copy. The Supreme Court set the order aside for want of reasons. Under Jagdev Singh Talwandi and Anil Rai, a final order should not be announced until a reasoned judgment is ready, and parties cannot be made to wait indefinitely. An appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act would be an empty formality without findings, and election petitions are time-sensitive under Section 86(7). With the respondent's consent, the application was restored for fresh hearing and sent to the Chief Justice for assignment, with the merits left open.
Issues
- Whether an order allowing an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in an election petition can stand when its reasons were not made available for more than three months after the result was pronounced.
- Whether the appellant had to be relegated to the statutory appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Provisions considered
- Sections 86(7) and 116A, Representation of the People Act, 1951Election petitions are time-sensitive and are to be tried within six months. An appeal under Section 116A against an order without reasons would be an empty formality, so the appellant was not relegated to that remedy. (¶¶ 14, 20)
- Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The respondent's application to reject the election petition was restored for fresh consideration because no reasoned determination existed. No view was expressed on its merits. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 26)
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaThis Court intervened directly because the High Court's practice of pronouncing a bare result without reasons defeated the parties' remedies (Jagdev Singh Talwandi, Anil Rai). (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19)
Held
- Election litigation demands priority and expedition under Section 86(7). Pronouncing the result of an Order VII Rule 11 application without making reasons available for more than three months could not be countenanced. (¶¶ 14, 15, 19)
- The guidance in Jagdev Singh Talwandi (final orders should not be announced until a reasoned judgment is ready) and Anil Rai (guidelines on delayed judgments) is fundamental to the administration of justice and applies, with necessary changes, to any case. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18)
- A statutory appeal under Section 116A would be an empty formality where neither the legal nor the factual findings are available. A litigant cannot be expected to wait indefinitely for reasons, so the appellant was not relegated to that remedy. (¶ 20)
- The impugned order was set aside solely for want of reasons, the respondent having fairly agreed to argue afresh. The application was restored and placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court for assignment, with all aspects left open. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 24, 26)
Result
Appeal allowed. The order of 15.06.2022 was set aside and I.A. No. 1 of 2020 in Election Petition No. 34 of 2019 was restored for reconsideration. The matter was placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court for assignment, with the parties to appear on 10.10.2022 and the merits left open.