Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on April 8, 2024 said the standard of proof required for establishing a charge of “corrupt practice" in an election petition is same as is applicable to a criminal charge.

"It is also pertinent to note that a charge of “corrupt practice” is easy to level but difficult to prove because it is in the nature of criminal charge and has got to be proved beyond doubt," a bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi.

Court said though it is true that the election petitioner is not required to state as to how corrupt practice had materially affected the result of the election, nonetheless it is mandatory to state when the clause (d)(i) of Section 100(1) of the Representation of People Act is invoked as to how the result of election was materially affected by improper acceptance of the nomination form of the Appellant. 

It has been further pointed out Section 83(1)(b) of the Act mandates that when the allegation of “corrupt practice” is made, the election petition shall set forth full particulars of the corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of the names of parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice.

"The pleadings with regard to the allegation of corrupt practice have to be precise, specific and unambiguous whether it is bribery or undue influence or other corrupt practices as stated in Section 123 of the Act. If it is corrupt practice in the nature of undue influence, the pleadings must state the full particulars with regard to the direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere by the candidate, with the free exercise of any electoral right as stated in Section 123(2) of the Act," the bench said.

With this view, the court dismissed an election petition filed by Animul Haque Laskar and others against Karim Uddin Barbhuiya, who got elected as a candidate of All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF) for Sonai constituency in Assam Legislative Assembly in 2021 with 52,283 votes in his favour.

The appellant Barbhuiya challenged the Gauhati High Court's order of April 26, 2023 which dismissed his application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the election petition filed by Laskar.

An election petition was filed for allegedly making false declaration of educational qualification of BA, suppression of the educational qualification of Diploma in Engineering, bank loan details of M/s Allied Concern and un-liquidated provident fund dues.

The court, however, pointed out the respondent had failed to establish in pleadings of the election petition as to how the appellant had interfered or attempted to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral right so as to constitute “undue influence” under Section 123(2) of the Act.

"It may be noted that as per the well settled legal position, right to contest election or to question the election by means of an election Petition is neither common law nor fundamental right. It is a statutory right governed by the statutory provisions of the RP Act. Outside the statutory provisions, there is no right to dispute an election. The RP Act is a complete and self contained code within which any rights claimed in relation to an election or an election dispute must be found. The provisions of Civil Procedure Code are applicable to the extent as permissible under Section 87 of the RP Act," the bench said.

In the case, the court noted not a single averment was made as to how the result of the election was materially affected by improper acceptance of the appellant's nomination.

The bench emphasised that it hardly needs to be reiterated that in an Election Petition, pleadings have to be precise, specific and unambiguous, and if the election petition does not disclose a cause of action, it is liable to be dismissed in limine. 

It also pointed out none of the allegations with regard to the false statements, and suppression and misrepresentation of facts with regard to educational qualification or liability in respect of the loan or default in depositing the employer’s contribution to provident fund, would fall within the definition of “corrupt practice” of “undue influence” as envisaged in Section 123(2) of the RP Act.

"Mere bald and vague allegations without any basis would not be sufficient compliance of the requirement of making a concise statement of the “material facts” in the election petition. The material facts which are primary and basic facts have to be pleaded in support of the case set up by the election petitioner to show his cause of action. Any omission of a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action entitling the returned candidate to pray for dismissal of Election petition under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC read with Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act," the bench said.

Case Title: KARIM UDDIN BARBHUIYA vs. AMINUL HAQUE LASKAR & ORS