In CA 3895-3896 of 2023 - SC- Supreme Court rejects allegation of corrupt practices during election of Tamil Nadu’s Aravakurichi Assembly Constituency
Justices Abhay S. Oka & Rajesh Bindal [19-05-2023]

Read Order: Senthilbalaji V. v. A.P. Geetha

Simran Singh

New Delhi, May 20, 2023: In a civil appeal arising out of an election petition the Supreme Court has  set aside the impugned judgment, and the application filed by the appellant for rejection of the petition and/or for deletion of irreverent paragraphs was allowed.

The Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal opined that "as material facts regarding allegations of corrupt practice have not been pleaded, the election petition does not disclose any cause of action as far as the ground of corrupt practice is concerned.”

In the case at hand, the election petition was filed by the respondent under Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (‘RP Act of 1951’) in the Madras High Court questioning the validity of the election of 134 - Aravakurichi Assembly Constituency held on November 19, 2026, the results to which were declared on November 22, 2016. The present appellant was the 5th respondent in the Election Petition filed by the respondent, who was declared as elected.

The grounds of challenge in the Election Petition were:

1. the improper acceptance of nomination papers of the appellant and the 6th respondent.
2. the election was void as the appellant had indulged in corrupt practices. The allegation was that the appellant’s agent and some other persons with the consent of the appellant had indulged in corrupt practices.

The Court opined that there was failure to plead material facts concerning alleged corrupt practice which was fatal to the election petition. The material facts were the primary facts which must be proved on trial by a party to establish the existence of a cause of action. In the present case not a single material fact was pleaded making out an allegation of corrupt practice covered by Section 123 of the RP Act of 1951.

“All that the first respondent has pleaded is that he made representations to the Returning Officer and other authorities complaining about the corrupt practice on the part of the appellant. What is the nature of the corrupt practice is not mentioned even in brief. Therefore, material facts, which according to the first respondent constitute corrupt practice were not pleaded in the Election Petition.”

The bench referred to the emails, photographs, and video footage that were relied upon in the list of documents filed along with the Election Petition and stated that “at the highest, these documents will constitute particulars and not material facts.”

The Bench further stated that the High Court had no reason to direct the election petitioner to file material documents on record while dismissing applications filed by the appellant and the 6th respondent vis-a-vis for the rejection of the petition and/or for deletion of irrelevant paragraphs. “It was for the first respondent to seek permission to produce the documents. The first respondent never sought such permission. Even if the documents are produced, the same will be without any foundation in the pleadings.” stated the Court

The Bench stated that many of the paragraphs in the petition were unnecessary which did not deal with something which happened after the election was declared. It was therefore, stated that the said paragraphs being irrelevant would have to be ordered to be deleted under Rule 16 of Order VI of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. “Neither does the petition state the material facts that prove the alleged cause of action nor does it disclose any material facts in relation to the allegations of corrupt practices.” Observed the Court

“As stated earlier, the ground of improper acceptance of the nomination paper is not supported by material facts. In any case, the ground of improper acceptance of the nomination paper is no longer relevant as the term of the appellant has already expired.”

With the above observation, the impugned judgment was set aside and the application filed by the appellant for the rejection of the petition and/or for deletion of irrelevant paragraphs were allowed.