Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said that election petition cannot be rejected on threshold under Order VII and Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code if it discloses a cause of action and there is substantial compliance with the provisions of the Representation of People Act.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah dismissed a petition filed by Kimneo Haokip Hangshing, an MLA from the Manipur Assembly constituency against the high court's order rejecting her plea against an election petition.

Respondent Kenn Raikhan, an unsuccessful contestant, had filed the election petition in the high court, alleging the appellant had not disclosed her assets in her nomination papers and that she had indulged in “corrupt practices” in the election.

The appellant had then filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for rejection of the petition, which was dismissed by the high court on July 05, 2023.

The respondent contended the appellant had been declared as the returned candidate by improperly accepting the nomination paper despite the concealment of the asset and investment of about Rs 2 crore for land development in the said property of land and construction inside the agricultural land mentioned in her Form 26 affidavit.

It was also alleged the appellant had concealed her total income for Financial Year 2021-22 and shown as Rs 0 even though she was serving as committee officer at Secretariat of Manipur Legislative Assembly till December 31, 2021.

Before the high court, the appellant had moved the application under Order VII Rule 11 for rejection of the respondent's petition on the grounds that it did not disclose any cause of action as it did not specify any corrupt practices alleged to have been committed by her, nor was there any averment regarding concealment of her income/assets. Therefore, the Election Petition did not comply with the requirements of Section 83 of RPA and ought to be dismissed at the threshold.

The high court, however, had said that whether the appellant had any income or not and whether there was a wrong declaration at the time of nomination, it needed to be looked into in trial for which evidence had to be led by the parties and examined by the court. The petition cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 application, the high court had said, rejecting the application.

Referring to Section 83 of the Representation of People Act, the top court said that an election petition should, inter alia, contain a concise statement of material facts and particulars of any corrupt practices which is alleged against the returned candidate, etc. Further, the Proviso to Section 83(1) of the Act requires that the election petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in prescribed form to support the allegations of corrupt practices, it added.

The bench pointed out that over the years, election petitions have been filed invariably on the grounds which are similar to the ones raised in the instant plea.

The court said that the only question was whether the court could dismiss such a petition at the very threshold on an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC or that the petition needed a detailed consideration by the court. 

"The answer to this will depend upon what kind of statutory compliances have been made in the election petition," the bench said.

The appellant had contended the material details had to be given by the respondent particularly the details of corrupt practices etc. The provisions have to be strictly construed and any deviation by the respondent on this requirement would make the petition liable to be dismissed at the very threshold, she had argued. 

On this, the bench said, "This is not what is the requirement of law. Rather the settled position of law here is that an election petition should not be rejected at the very threshold where there is a 'substantial compliance' of the provisions".

Court referred to the contents of the election petition, which stated about non-disclosure of Rs two Crore construction on agricultural land and income during the period of 2021-22.

"On a perusal of the petition as a whole, including the averments, it is clear that a cause of action has been disclosed by the respondent. Whether the appellant has concealed her investments and her income, and thus her nomination has been improperly accepted, is a triable issue," the bench said.

Court also relied upon G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar (2013) wherein a three-judge bench to a question as to whether an election petition is liable to be dismissed at the very threshold even if the allegations of corrupt practices of a returned candidate have not been given by a petitioner in terms of the proviso in Section 83(1)(c) of RPA, said, 

"The finding of this court was that this cannot be done even if an affidavit is not filed in terms of the proviso. What is mandatory, however, is that there should be substantial compliance. In other words, if substantial compliance in terms of furnishing all that is required under the law has been given, the petition cannot be summarily dismissed."

The bench also said that in a more recent case from Manipur (Thangjam Arunkumar v. Yumkham Erabot Singh, 2023), it had upheld the dismissal of the returning candidate’s Order VII Rule 11 application by the Manipur High Court in an election petition.

The court thus dismissed the appeal, saying, "We see no reason to interfere with the finding of the High Court of Manipur that the election petition discloses a cause of action and that there is substantial compliance of the requirements provided under provisions of RPA and thus the petition cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC".

Case Title: Kimneo Haokip Hangshing Vs Kenn Raikhan & Ors