Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the Manipur High Court's refusal to reject, under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, an election petition alleging that the returned candidate concealed assets and income in her nomination affidavit, holding that the petition disclosed a cause of action and substantially complied with Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Issues
- Whether an election petition alleging concealment of assets and income in the returned candidate's nomination papers was liable to be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for failure to disclose a cause of action.
- Whether strict compliance with Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, including the affidavit requirement in its proviso, is necessary to save an election petition from summary dismissal.
Provisions considered
- Section 83(1)(a) and (b), Representation of the People Act, 1951Read as requiring a concise statement of material facts and full particulars of any alleged corrupt practice; the Court held that substantial compliance suffices and found it in pleadings that the returned candidate left blank the column for an investment of about Rs. 2 crore in construction on her land and declared nil income for 2021-22 while serving as a Committee Officer in the Assembly Secretariat. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8)
- Proviso to Section 83(1) (affidavit in support of corrupt practice), Representation of the People Act, 1951Following G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar and Thangjam Arunkumar v. Yumkham Erabot Singh, the Court treated the affidavit requirement as not mandatory in the sense of warranting threshold dismissal; substantial compliance is enough and the defect is curable. (¶¶ 6, 9, 10, 11)
- Rule 94A and Form 25, Conduct of Election Rules, 1961Noted as prescribing the form of the affidavit to accompany an election petition alleging corrupt practice, to be sworn before a first-class magistrate, notary or commissioner of oaths. (¶ 9)
- Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The returned candidate's application to reject the election petition for not disclosing a cause of action failed because, read as a whole, the petition disclosed one and raised triable issues. (¶¶ 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12)
- Section 33, Representation of the People Act, 1951Referred to as pleaded in the election petition for the requirement that candidates furnish true and correct information in their nomination papers. (¶ 8)
Held
- An election petition is not to be rejected at the threshold where there is substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; strict construction leading to summary dismissal for any deviation is not the requirement of law. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- Pleadings that the returned candidate left blank the column for an investment of about Rs. 2 crore in construction on her agricultural land and declared nil income for 2021-22 despite being in government service until 31.12.2021, coupled with a plea under Section 33, disclosed a cause of action; whether she concealed assets and income so that her nomination was improperly accepted is a triable issue. (¶ 8)
- Non-filing or defective filing of the affidavit required by the proviso to Section 83(1) does not by itself justify dismissing the petition at the threshold; substantial compliance suffices and an opportunity may be given to cure the defect. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- The High Court rightly dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. (¶ 12)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the High Court's order rejecting the Order VII Rule 11 application was upheld and the election petition will proceed to trial; interim orders vacated.