Election Petition Should Not Be Rejected Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC When There Is 'Substantial Compliance' Of RP Act Provisions: Supreme Court

The Court upheld the decision of the Manipur High Court which held that an Election Petition disclosing a cause of action that there is “substantial compliance” of the requirements provided under provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA) cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

A Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed, “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."

Senior Advocate D N Goburdhan represented the appellant, while Advocate Ahanthem Henry appeared for the respondents.

The respondent, who was also a contestant from the same seat, filed an Election Petition before the High Court challenging the result of the election on the grounds that the appellant had not disclosed her assets in her nomination papers and that she had indulged in “corrupt practices” in the election.

The appellant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC read with Section 86 of the RPA for rejection of the petition on the grounds that the respondent’s petition did not disclose any cause of action. The appellant submitted that the petition did not specify any corrupt practices alleged to have been committed, nor was there any averment regarding the concealment of her income/assets.

However, the High Court dismissed the application holding that whether the appellant had any income or not and whether a wrong declaration was given at the time of the nomination needed to be looked into in trial for which evidence had to be led by the parties and examined by the Court.

The Supreme Court stated that an Election Petition should, inter alia, contain a concise statement of material facts and particulars of any corrupt practices alleged against the returned candidate, etc. The Court pointed out that Section 83(1) of the RPA requires an affidavit in a prescribed form to support the allegations of corrupt practices.

“The only question is whether the Court can dismiss such a petition at the very threshold on an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC or that the petition needs 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 Court remarked.

The Bench reiterated the the settled position of law that an Election Petition should not be rejected at the very threshold where there is a “substantial compliance” of the provisions.

The Bench pointed out that the respondent had pleaded that construction worth approx. Rs. 2 crores had taken place on the agricultural land of the appellant, however, the column for investment in land through construction has been left empty by the appellant.

“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..On a perusal of the petition as a whole, including the averments reproduced above, 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 Court observed.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: Kimneo Haokip Hangshing v. Kenn Raikhan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 689)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate D N Goburdhan; AOR B. Krishna Prasad; Advocates Rajani K Prasad and Sunita Rani Singh

Respondents: Advocates Ahanthem Henry, Ahanthem Rohen Singh, Mohan Singh, Aniket Rajput and Khoisnam Nirmala Devi; AOR Kumar Mihir

Click here to read/download the Judgment